The House Committee on Small Business — National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Executive Order 14019

Summary

An interim report of the House Committee on Small Business on the Small Business Administration's (SBA) implementation of Executive Order 14019, Promoting Access to Voting, and a Memorandum of Understanding between the SBA and the Michigan Department of State. The report states that the Committee's investigation began in April 2024 and that it submits the interim report on present findings while subpoenaed information is outstanding. The report's findings state that the Executive Order is an improper use of executive authority and that the SBA's memorandum and travel patterns of senior SBA officials indicate a conflation of official duty and partisan political activities. The contents list sections on the Anti-Deficiency Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Hatch Act and the SBA's alleged lack of transparency, followed by appendices that include a timeline.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Issuer: Congressional materials
Document type: 407112 2024 12 11 Committee On Small Business Releases Interim Staff Att0
Date: 2024-12-11
Case: 407112 2024 12 11 Committee On Small Business Releases Interim Staff Att0

Cite this document

“The House Committee on Small Business — National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Executive Order 14019.” Dated 2024-12-11. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2024-12-11-407112-2024-12-11-committee-on-small-business-releases-interim-staff-att0/, SHA-256 3847795e6e6cd59b0e0d67c272c117c2f2cbd90517798797a215a4ec642b405c.

Full text

1
Contents

I. Executive Summary...................................................................................................... 4
II. Background.................................................................................................................. 5
a. National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Executive Order 14019, and the SBA’s MOU
with the State of Michigan................................................................................................. 5
b. The Context of SBA’s MOU with the State of Michigan and Partisanship Concerns. 7
III. SBA’s Implementation of E.O. 14019 and Activities in Michigan......................... 9
a. Summary of the SBA’s MOU...................................................................................... 9
Figure 1: Email Between SBA and MDOS Officials Regarding Online Voter
Registration Data . ................................................................................................ 10
b. Michigan State Law Concerns.................................................................................... 11
c. The SBA’s Actions Under E.O. 14019 are Improper Uses of Executive Authority.... 11
Figure 2: White House Meeting Agenda with Civil Rights Organizations
About Affirmative Opportunities for Voter Registration . ................................ 13
Figure 3: Demos and ACLU Talking Points at the July 12, 2021, White House
E.O. 14019 Roundtable with Voting Rights Activists . ...................................... 14
Figure 4: White House Personnel “Warmly Welcoming” Engagement with Civil
Rights Organizations and Gratitude for “Ambitious and Creative Approaches” 15
d.. The SBA’s MOU with Michigan is Beyond the Scope of the Agency’s Mission and
Suggests Partisanship is Impacting the SBA.. ................................................................... 16
Map 1: Overlap of Top 10 Counties with Highest Percentage of Voting Age
Population Registered with Locations of Visits, Field Offices, Resource Partners,
and Outreach Events. ........................................................................................... 17
Map 2: Overlap of Share Small Business Employment and Locations of Visits,
Field Offices, Resource Partners, and Outreach Events.................................... 18
IV. Use of Taxpayer Resources. ....................................................................................... 20
a. Anti-Deficiency Act..................................................................................................... 20
b. Hiring Decisions. ........................................................................................................ 21
i. Jennifer Kim............................................................................................................. 21
ii. Jessica Reeves......................................................................................................... 22
V. The SBA’s MOU Potentially Violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). .. 24
VI. Broader Partisan Concerns and Potential Hatch Act Concerns at the SBA. ....... 26
a. Hidden-Camera Video Alleging Partisanship at the SBA........................................... 26
b. The Hatch Act. ............................................................................................................ 26
c. The Committee’s Investigation into the Alleged Partisan Activities at the SBA........ 27
VII. The SBA’s Stonewalling and Transparency Failures............................................. 29
a.. Unresponsive to the Committee’s Requests for Information Regarding the MOU and
Travel Information of Senior SBA Officials...................................................................... 29
Figure 5: SBA Court Declaration that an Implementation Plan was Transmitted

2
to the White House ............................................................................................... 31
VIII. Conclusion. .............................................................................................................. 35
APPENDIX. ......................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix 1: List of Abbreviations. ................................................................................ 37
Appendix 2: Timeline. ..................................................................................................... 39
Appendix 3: Verratti on Emails with White House Personnel Regarding a Meeting
with Civil Rights Organizations . ................................................................................... 44
Appendix 4: DOJ Directive to Shield E.O. 14019 Implementation Plans from the Public 45
Appendix 5: U.S. Railroad Retirement Board E.O. 14019 Strategic Plans Excerpt. 46
Appendix 6: Department of Labor Correspondence RE: E.O. 14019 Implementation 47

3
I. Executive Summary
The House Committee on Small Business (the Committee) is charged with investigating all “problems
of all types of small business” under House Rule X. As part of this responsibility, the Committee has been
investigating the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) implementation of Executive Order 14019, Promoting
Access to Voting (E.O. 14019); a Memorandum of Understanding and Memorandum of Agreement (collectively
referred to as the “MOU”) between the SBA and the Michigan Department of State (MDOS); and allegations of
partisan political activity at the SBA.

The Committee’s investigation into these matters began in April 2024. Throughout the course of this
investigation, the Committee has sent 8 letters, issued 3 subpoenas, reviewed over 10,100 documents, conducted
2 transcribed interviews consisting of over 10 hours of testimony from SBA officials, and have discussed these
topics at 4 hearings, totaling over 6 hours of questioning from Committee members.

It is imperative to recognize the SBA’s lack of transparency with the Committee regarding this
investigation. While there is more information the SBA must provide in compliance with the Committee’s
outstanding subpoena, the Committee now remits this interim report on its present findings until such a time
where the subpoenaed information is provided.

Finding 1: E.O. 14019 is an improper use of executive authority, and agency actions under
this E.O. pose unnecessary risks to the integrity of U.S. elections.

Finding 2: The SBA’s MOU with the State of Michigan and travel patterns of senior SBA
officials indicate the conflation of official duty and partisan political activities.
Either intentionally or negligently, the SBA has failed to refute concerns of this
MOU’s partisan nature.

Finding 3: The SBA has engaged in a protracted campaign to obscure the makeup of its im-
plementation of E.O. 14019 and obfuscate the truth of alleged political activities
at the SBA to the Committee.

Finding 4: The SBA, an agency created to aid and assist small businesses, has strayed from
its core mission.

Finding 5: To agree and participate in this MOU, the SBA pushed the bounds of, if not
exceeded, the requirements of numerous Federal and state laws, including the Na-
tional Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), the Anti-Deficiency Act, the Hatch
Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and Michigan state law.

4
II. Background
a. National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Executive Order 14019, and the SBA’s MOU with the
State of Michigan

On March 19, 2024, the SBA announced a “first of its kind” MOU with the Michigan Department
of State purporting to help to facilitate voter registration in the State of Michigan.1 The next day during this
Committee’s hearing with the SBA Administrator, Isabella Guzman, several Committee members expressed
concern over the political nature of the MOU.2 On April 4, 2024, the Committee formally launched an
investigation into the MOU and the SBA’s voter registration activities with the goal of ensuring the Agency is
not directing resources away from Main Street America to register voters in Michigan.3

This MOU is the SBA’s implementation of the Biden-Harris Administration’s March 2021 Executive
Order Promoting Access to Voting, which implements the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).4
The NVRA charges each state with the responsibility of designating “voter registration agencies” (VRAs) that
perform voter registration activities for that state’s election system, and permits Federal and nongovernmental
entities to accept a state’s designation as a VRA “with [the] agreement of such offices.”5 The Act is intended as a
tool which states can elect to affirmatively request a Federal entity to be a VRA in that state. The SBA explicitly
confirmed this premise by stating “Congress authorized the practice of a state requesting that Federal agency be
designated as a voter registration agency” under the NVRA.6

For the first time in nearly 30 years, E.O. 14019 changed the executive branch’s implementation of the
NVRA by broadening the role of Federal entities in a state’s administration of an election. Since the NVRA was
passed, the Federal government’s policy encouraged agencies to accept a designation “if agreement is consistent
with the department’s, agency’s, or entity’s legal authority and availability of funds.”7 The Biden-Harris
Administration’s E.O. 14019, however, removes the considerations for available funds and legal authority from
the relevant section, and now commands Federal entities to accept a state’s VRA designation or provide an
explanation to the President for the decision to decline it.8

Additionally, E.O. 14019 commands the heads of agencies to consider ways of distributing and assisting
applicants with completing voter registration and vote-by-mail ballot application forms, as well as soliciting
and facilitating White House approved third-party organizations and state officials to provide voter registration
services on Federal agency premises.9 Finally, E.O. 14019 requires the heads of executive agencies to work with
the White House Domestic Policy Council (DPC) to strategize ways to support Federal employees who wish
to volunteer to serve as poll workers or observers, particularly during early or extended voting periods.10 E.O.
14019’s new policy greatly expands the NVRA, exceeds the Act’s original intent, and opens the door for the
President, via Federal agencies, to improperly involve executive branch employees in a state’s administration of
an election.

The concept and design of E.O. 14019, however, did not originate from the Biden-Harris Administration.
1
Press Release, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., SBA Administrator Guzman Announces Agency’s First-Ever Voter Registration Agreement
with Michigan Department of State (Mar. 19, 2024).
2
See Conducting Oversight: Testimony from the Small Business Administrator: Hearing Before H. Comm. on Small Bus., 118th Cong.
(Mar. 20, 2024) (statements of Dan Meuser, Member, H. Comm. on Small Bus., Pete Stauber, Member, H. Comm. on Small Bus).
3
Letter from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin.
(Apr. 4, 2024).
4
See Exec. Order No. 14019, 86 Fed. Reg. 13623, 13624 (Mar. 7, 2021).
5
52 U.S. § 20506(B)(ii).
6
See Letter from George Holman, Assoc. Adm’r, Cong. And Legislative Affairs, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., to Roger Williams, Chair-
man, H. Comm. on Small Bus. (Apr. 26, 2024) (emphasis added).
7
Exec. Order No. 12926, 59 Fed. Reg. 47227 (Sep. 14, 1994).
8
Exec. Order No. 14019, 86 Fed. Reg. 13623 (Mar. 7, 2021).
9
Id., at 13623-24.
10
Id., at 13625.

5
Rather, E.O. 14019 was conceptualized by Demos, a left-wing think tank, that works to “pioneer bold,
progressive ideas, reinforce them with original research and analysis, and equip grassroots partner organizations
to move them into practical reality.”11 In December of 2020, Demos released a policy brief entitled “Executive
Action to Advance Democracy: What the Biden-Harris Administration and the Agencies Can Do to Build a
More Inclusive Democracy.”12 Written in response to the alleged “assault on our democracy over the last 4
years,” referring to the Trump Administration, the first recommendation Demos made to the Biden-Harris
Administration was to “direct Federal agencies to provide voter registration.”13 Demos specifically elaborated:

The Biden-Harris Administration can make voting more accessible by directing specified Federal
agencies, in their administration of Federal programs, to act as voter registration agencies, including
providing voter registration applications, assisting clients to complete applications, and transmitting
completed applications to state authorities.14

This interim report will illustrate how the Biden-Harris Administration and the SBA have implemented
this left-leaning think tank’s recommendation with the State of Michigan.

Since the start of the Committee’s investigation, lawsuits challenging E.O. 14019 have been filed, and
various secretaries of state have taken measures to limit E.O. 14019’s reach into their state government’s role in
administering elections. For instance, on June 28, 2024, the Indiana Secretary of State directed over 100 Federal
agencies to cease unauthorized involvement in voter registration activities in the State of Indiana.15 On July
15, 2024, the Republican National Committee (RNC) filed a lawsuit against Michigan state officials as well as
Administrator Guzman and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for their voter registration activities in the State
of Michigan.16 Additionally, on August 14, 2024, nine state attorney generals filed a similar lawsuit against
President Biden and his cabinet challenging the constitutionality of E.O. 14019.17

In response to widespread concern and mounting legal actions concerning E.O. 14019, the Biden-
Harris Administration has limited transparency of federal agencies’ plans to implement the E.O., preventing
the American people from knowing the truth about the use of their taxpayer dollars, or what the Biden-Harris
Administration’s plans to involve the Federal government in elections include.18

While the idea of assisting Americans seeking to register to vote is certainly positive, the Committee
has substantial concerns that the SBA’s MOU and E.O. 14019 drastically intertwine the executive branch in the
elections process. Specifically, these efforts unnecessarily blur the line between an agency official’s personal
political views and nonpolitical duties, and will inevitably result in partisan outcomes. These concerns proved
to be well-founded, as a review of the MOU’s design show the SBA’s in-person voter registration activities will
not take place where voter registration is needed, nor reach existing small businesses in Michigan. Additionally,
because the SBA does not have unlimited resources, the Agency cannot universally implement E.O. 14019
across all states and all Americans. Thus, the SBA must make decisions that could tip the scales of democracy,
and by doing so, implement E.O. 14019 in a potentially partisan fashion.

11
About Demos, Demos (last visited Sep. 12, 2024), https://www.demos.org/about.
12
Demos, Executive Action to Advance Democracy: What the Biden-Harris Administration and the Agencies Can Do to
Build a More Inclusive Democracy (Dec. 3, 2020).
13
Id.
14
Id.
15
See Leslie Bonilla Muniz, Indiana elections chief directs 100+ federal agencies to halt alleged ‘unauthorized involvement’, Indiana
Capital Chronicle (Jul. 3, 2024).
16
See Dareh Gregorian and Selina Guevara, Trump campaign sues Michigan Gov. Whitmer over new voter registration sites, NBC
News (July 15, 2024).
17
M.D. Kittle, States File Federal Lawsuit to Shut Down ‘Bidenbucks’, The Federalist (Aug. 14, 2024). States include Montana,
Kansas, Iowa, South Dakota, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina. Id.
18
Foundation for Gov’t Accountability v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2:22-cv-00252-JLB-KCD (M. D. Fl. May 28, 2022) (Document 78-1)
(on file with the Committee).

6
Regardless of the SBA’s intent, the Agency involving itself in the election process inherently presents
concerns of partisanship and would require a substantial amount of effort by the SBA to mitigate the many
potential partisan concerns arising under this MOU. Further, in expanding the executive branch’s role in
elections, it is easy to see how newfound powers under E.O. 14019 could be abused by whomever is the
incumbent president, without a single change in Federal election laws.

b. The Context of SBA’s MOU with the State of Michigan and Partisanship Concerns
Given the widespread concern regarding E.O. 14019 and its potential for abuse, the Committee was
highly skeptical of the SBA’s MOU with Michigan from the day of its announcement. These concerns were
amplified when the Committee discovered the MOU was signed mere days after the Biden-Harris campaign
announced it will be establishing over 15 field offices across Michigan.19 Michigan was critical to both President
Biden and Vice President Harris’s presidential campaigns.20 At the time of the MOU’s announcement, the
Biden-Harris Administration’s approval ratings in Michigan were deteriorating, making this MOU even more
suspicious.21
The importance of Michigan in the 2024 general election and the Committee’s initial concerns about
the MOU were compounded by the sympathy of Michigan officials for Vice President Harris’s campaign.
The Governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, served as the Co-Chair of the Harris presidential campaign.22
Additionally, two weeks before the MOU was signed, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, stated
that several battleground secretaries of state are united against “a common adversary,” referring to the 2024
Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump.23 The Committee does not dispute that public officials are
entitled to have their personal political beliefs. However, this interim report illustrates how the MOU blurs the
line between personal political beliefs and the official duties of SBA and Michigan state employees.
Furthermore, the Committee seriously questions the SBA’s rationale behind selecting Michigan for
this MOU. If the SBA’s intent was genuinely about increasing voter registration, the Agency would have
partnered with a state that has low voter participation and difficulty registering voters. Instead, the SBA solicited
Michigan, which Secretary Benson has boasted as the second best-administered election system in the nation
according to the MIT Election Data and Science Lab.24 In addition to the SBA’s diversion of already limited
resources to engage in voter registration activities in Michigan, Secretary Benson’s announcement amplified
the Committee’s skepticism of the SBA’s rationale in selecting Michigan. It is clear to the Committee that
Michigan is a state that needs no help in registering voters, and the SBA’s solicitation of Michigan likely had
to do with the State’s significance to the Biden and Harris 2024 presidential campaigns. To date, the SBA has
failed to provide any evidence to refute that the Agency selected Michigan, at least in part, because of the state’s
significance in the 2024 presidential election.

19
See Biden campaigns in Michigan in latest visit to battleground state, The Wash. Post (Mar. 14, 2024). See Joey Cappelletti, Biden
visits Michigan county emerging as the swing state’s top bellwether, AP News (Mar. 14, 2024) (“Top Biden advisors, both from
the campaign and the White House, have traveled frequently over the past several months to places like Dearborn, a Detroit suburb
with the nation’s highest concentration of Arab Americans, in their efforts to win back what had been a reliably Democratic constitu-
ency . . . Biden’s team is keenly aware of the pushback his reelection has encountered in certain minority communities in Michigan.
[Biden’s March 14th visit is his] second in six weeks, and his team is establishing over 15 field offices across Michigan, including
Saginaw.”).
20
For instance, a Biden-aligned nonprofit, which launched a voting rights initiative, identified Michigan as an “initial priority state.”
Zach Montellaro, Biden-aligned nonprofit launches voting rights initiative, Politico (Apr. 28, 2021).
21
Joey Cappelletti, Biden visits Michigan county emerging as the swing state’s top bellwether, AP News (Mar. 14, 2024).
22
Tim Hains, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer: Proud to be Co-Chair of the Kamala Harris Campaign, Real Clear Politics (Jul.
22, 2024).
23
The Midwesterner (@Th_Midwesterner), Twitter (Mar. 5, 2024, 11:56 AM), https://x.com/Th_Midwesterner/sta-
tus/1765058881871311148.
24
Press Release, Michigan Dep’t of State, Secretary Benson announces Michigan’s elections ranked #2 in the nation by MIT Election
Data and Science Lab (Mar. 22, 2024).

7
Within weeks of the Committee learning about the MOU, a hidden-camera video of Tyler Robinson,
former Special Assistant to Administrator Guzman, was released containing allegations of partisan activity at
the SBA prohibited by the Hatch Act.25 Specifically, in the video, Mr. Robinson alleged that senior officials in
the Biden-Harris White House allegedly “authorized [Administrator Guzman] to go campaign” for Democrat
members of Congress in contested races, because the SBA “can help [those members] get reelected as well,”
and to not invite Republican senators or members of Congress.26 Among other things, Mr. Robinson alleged
that Administrator Guzman has traveled across the country to battleground states “indirectly campaigning” for
President Biden—allegedly making statements such as: “because we [the Biden-Harris Administration] passed
this law that no Republicans voted for, that only Democrats voted for and passed” the local community is
receiving an “investment” from the Biden-Harris Administration.27

Such activities implicate the Hatch Act, which generally prohibits Federal executive branch employees
from engaging in partisan political behavior and provides for limited circumstances in which certain employees
may participate in such activities.28 As a result, the Committee broadened this investigation to include the
alleged partisan political travel and activities of employees at the SBA. As discussed in this interim report, the
combination of the alleged partisan political activities and the SBA’s MOU with the State of Michigan sounded
alarms with the Committee. Since the Committee broadened the scope of this investigation, the Office of
Special Counsel (OSC) has informed the Committee that it is probing similar allegations involving the SBA.

25
See James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII), Twitter (Apr. 17, 2024, 3:57 PM), https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/sta-
tus/1780687148527579215.
26
Id.
27
Id.
28
5 USC § 7324(b)(1)-(2); U.S. Office of Special Counsel, OSC Advisory Regarding Mixed Travel by Presidentially-Ap-
pointed / Senate Confirmed (PAS) Employees, 1 (Oct. 6, 2011). See also Whitney K. Novak, Cong. Research Serv. IF11512, The
Hatch Act: A Primer (Apr. 20, 2020).

8
III. SBA’s Implementation of E.O. 14019 and Activities in Michigan
a. Summary of the SBA’s MOU

The MOU between the SBA and the State of Michigan allows for a variety of new ways the two entities
can orchestrate voter registration. The MOU provides for the SBA to engage in three main categories of
voter registration activities through January 1, 2036: (1) connecting with voters, (2) disseminating a URL for
Michigan online voter registration forms when providing SBA services and facilitating the secure transmission
of such forms to MDOS, and (3) inviting MDOS personnel to in-person small business outreach events to
register attendees.

Under the MOU, the SBA connects MDOS with voters to get them registered through preexisting
channels of communication. At the outset, the MOU tasks the SBA with providing “voter registration training
to all personnel conducting activities under this MOU.”29 The SBA is then responsible to “provide the same
level of assistance to all applicants in completing voter registration application forms as is provided with respect
to other non-VRA services provided by the Agency (unless the applicant specifically refuses such agency
assistance).”30 Additionally, the SBA “may provide additional assistance or services at its discretion” under the
MOU.31

In addition to connecting with voters for the purposes of voter registration, the SBA is also required to
“make available electronic voter registration application forms via [a unique URL that redirects users] . . . to the
State of Michigan’s online voter registration page.”32 Under the MOU, the SBA must also “accept completed
registration forms from applicants through the unique URL . . . and transmit each completed voter registration
application to the appropriate election official. . . .”33 While documents reviewed by the Committee illustrate
that URLs similar to the one employed by SBA “does not [usually] result in the partner agency getting voter-
specific data from MDOS,” or require a data sharing agreement, MDOS left the opportunity open to the SBA
by noting “if SBA does want to receive such data . . . it’s something we can discuss.”34 In the final version of
the MOU, it appears SBA does receive some data. The MOU specifically states that “MDOS shall provide
the agency with metrics including but not limiting to . . . total of persons who were driven to MDOS online
voter registration site and completed the form via the unique URL.”35 Additionally, the MOU provides for
data and privacy policies, imposing requirements on the SBA to protect the data it receives as a VRA, create a
security policy pertaining to the data, and implement administrative, physical, and technical safeguards.36 Such
enumerated provisions of the MOU indicate that voter-specific data is likely shared between MDOS and the
SBA. To date, the SBA has failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.

29
U.S. Small Bus. Admin., Memorandum of Understanding (Mar. 18, 2024) (on file with Committee).
30
Id. The SBA will provide electronic voter registration services under the MOU during lending transactions (funding opportunities,
loan applications, etc.). Id.
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
Id.
34
Email from Jonathan Brater, Director of Elections, Michigan Dep’t of State, to Juan Semertegui, Dep. General Counsel, Off. General
Counsel, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (Aug. 26, 2022, 1:20 PM) (on file with the Committee).
35
U.S. Small Bus. Admin., Memorandum of Understanding (Mar. 18, 2024) (on file with Committee).
36
Id.

9
Figure 1: Email Between SBA and MDOS Officials Regarding Online Voter Registration Data 37

The MOU also provides that the SBA “may invite MDOS to various in-person events to allow MDOS
to register attendees to vote [and] will provide logistical support.”38 During a May 3, 2024, briefing with
Committee staff, Jennifer Kim, the Associate Administrator of the SBA’s Office of Field Operations tasked
with leading the SBA’s implementation of E.O. 14019, could not provide a clear definition of “in-person”
events under the MOU. Initially, Ms. Kim stated the MOU refers to only SBA—or SBA co-sponsored events—
excluding the possibility of any events hosted by resource partners.39 However, after questioning by Committee
staff, Ms. Kim backtracked her initial statement and informed the Committee that in-person events hosted by
resource partners receiving SBA funding are also included in the MOU.40

The Committee recognizes the MOU also includes language prohibiting certain political conduct of
SBA officials in performing the obligations of the agreement. Specifically, the MOU prohibits SBA officials
from “seeking to influence an applicant’s political preference [or] displaying any political preference or party
allegiance,” among other things.41 This nonpartisan sentiment is consistent with statements made by SBA
officials to the Committee during this investigation.42 However, this interim report illustrates how mere language
in the MOU is an inadequate safeguard against partisan outcomes. Either intentionally or not, the MOU’s design
enables SBA officials to both comply with the MOU’s language prohibiting partisan political activity and still
37
The White House, Listening Session on Implementation of Executive Order 14019, Federal Agencies and Civil and Voting Rights
Organizations, Agenda (Jul. 12, 2021) (on file with Committee).
38
U.S. Small Bus. Admin., Memorandum of Understanding (Mar. 18, 2024) (on file with Committee).
39
Staff Briefing Between the Small Bus. Admin. and Staff of the H. Comm. on Small Bus., 118th Cong. (May 3, 2024) (statement of
Jennifer Kim, Associate Adm’r, Office of Field Operations).
40
U.S. Small Bus. Admin., Memorandum of Understanding (Mar. 18, 2024) (on file with Committee).
41
Id.
42
See e.g., Staff Briefing Between the Small Bus. Admin. and Staff of the H. Comm. on Small Bus., 118th Cong. (May 3, 2024) (state-
ment of Jennifer Kim, Associate Adm’r, Office of Field Operations).

10
result in partisan outcomes.

b. Michigan State Law Concerns

As discussed above, the NVRA relies upon the individual states—and their own laws—to designate
Federal agencies as VRAs under the NVRA. In the State of Michigan, the state legislature has the authority
under the Michigan state constitution to make such designations.43 Exercising that authority, the state legislature
created a statutory framework to designate VRAs in the State of Michigan following the passage of the
NVRA. In 1995, the Michigan legislature passed a state statute authorizing the Governor “[no] later than the
thirtieth day after the effective date of this section … [to] provide a list to the Secretary of State designating the
executive departments, state agencies, or other offices that will perform voter registration activities in this state.
. . .”44 Notably, the Michigan legislature neither delegated this authority indefinitely nor provided the Michigan
Secretary of State the authority to designate Federal agencies as VRAs, including the SBA or U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA).45

The Michigan statute expressly limited the Governor’s ability to unilaterally designate VRAs to thirteen
days after the effective date of Michigan’s implementing statute.46 Hence, the unambiguous text of the statute
indicates that the Governor of Michigan had the authority to designate “other offices,” including Federal
agencies, for thirteen days after January 10, 1995, and not after.47 To the Committee’s knowledge, no Michigan
Governor had designated any agency as a VRA since the initial designations were made following the passage
of the NVRA and subsequent Michigan state legislation until the VA in 2023. The SBA MOU was signed
nearly thirty years after the expiration of the Governor’s authority to unilaterally designate VRAs by executive
directive.

c. The SBA’s Actions Under E.O. 14019 are Improper Uses of Executive Authority

The SBA’s approach to establishing the MOU with the State of Michigan directly contradicts with the
NVRA’s provisions. Although the NVRA allows for the narrow circumstance where a state government can
request Federal agencies become voter registration agencies, the Committee’s investigation suggests that the
State of Michigan made no such request.48 In fact, the SBA requested to be a voter registration agency, the exact
opposite of what the NVRA provides for.49 This was confirmed by Ms. Kim during a May 3, 2024, briefing with
the Committee.50

Setting aside the apparent 29-year expiration of authority under Michigan law noted above, even if
the Governor had the authority to designate VRAs in 2024 by executive directive, no such directive existed
on March 18, 2024, when the SBA MOU was signed. The Committee noticed this difference with a similar
voter registration MOU between the State of Michigan and the VA, where the relevant executive directive is
referenced.51 The SBA’s MOU merely contains loose references to the executive power of the Governor of
Michigan including past executive directives, but cites no explicit authority for the Governor to enter or make

43
See Mich. Const. 1963, art. 2, § 4(2) (“The legislature shall enact laws to regulate the time, place and manner of all nominations and
elections, to preserve the purity of elections, to preserve the secrecy of the ballot, to guard against abuses of the elective franchise, and
to provide for a system of voter registration and absentee voting.”).
44
Mich Comp. Laws § 168.509u(1).
45
Mich Comp. Laws § 168.509n.
46
Mich Comp. Laws § 168.509u(1).
47
Id.
48
Exec. Order No. 14019, 86 Fed. Reg. 13624 (Mar. 7, 2021).
49
See Press Release, The White House, FACT SHEET: The Biden-Harris Administration is Taking Action to Restore and Strengthen
American Democracy (Dec. 8, 2021).
50
Staff Briefing Between the Small Bus. Admin. and Staff of the H. Comm. on Small Bus., 118th Cong. (May 3, 2024) (statement of
Jennifer Kim, Associate Adm’r, Office of Field Operations).
51
See U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, Interagency Agreement between the Michigan Department of State and the Department of Veter-
ans Affairs (Sep. 14, 2023) (on file with the Committee).

11
this MOU.52 This is because the executive directive designating the SBA didn’t exist until June 2024, three
months after the MOU was signed.53

In summation, neither party to the MOU are adhering to the authority granted by their respective
legislatures. The SBA is operating outside of its authority under the NVRA by soliciting the State of Michigan’s
designation as a VRA. The Governor of Michigan appears to be acting beyond the scope of what the Michigan
legislature authorized, because no Michigan law was passed designating the SBA as a VRA, and the Governor’s
unilateral authority to designate the SBA as a VRA expired in 1995.

The timing of the MOU’s signing, and announcement also suggests improper use of executive authority
by coordinating with the Biden-Harris reelection campaign. Documents reviewed by the Committee indicate
that the SBA’s MOU was going to be announced with the VA’s designation as a Michigan VRA in December
2023.54 Despite these plans, from December 2023 until just before March 2024, there was a large gap in
communication between the SBA and MDOS, according to the communications the Committee has reviewed.
On March 8, 2024, Ms. Kim indicated the SBA “is good to do an announcement on [the] MOU signing with
[MDOS] late next week and we can wait on the Governor’s EO if that can’t happen as quickly.”55 SBA officials
then followed up with MDOS stating “ideally, we’d get this [announcement] out Thursday,” March 14, 2024.56

This email exchange between the SBA and MDOS confirmed the SBA’s apparent disregard for legal
considerations, regardless of their validity, to cater to the Biden-Harris campaign. The Committee discovered
that, on March 8, 2024, the same day Ms. Kim reached out to MDOS to get the MOU signed and announced,
the Biden-Harris campaign announced a campaign trip to Saginaw, Michigan.57 The documents also revealed
that the SBA’s target date of announcing the MOU was the same day of a Biden-Harris campaign visit to
Michigan, where the campaign announced it would be establishing over 15 field offices across the State.58

This is not the first attempt where the SBA or Michigan officials attempt to coordinate with the White
House or Vice President Harris. Documents obtained by the Committee also revealed that Governor Gretchen
Whitmer’s office—the Co-Chair of the Harris presidential campaign—was “in touch” with the White House and
Vice President Harris’s office for the signing of a December 2023 Executive Directive designating both the SBA
and VA as VRAs.59 These examples raise one of the Committee’s core concerns that, not only was the MOU
beyond the scope of authority for the SBA to enter into, but the MOU inherently entangles the SBA and their
core duties to support small businesses with partisan political activities.

The Committee is also concerned by the apparent improper entanglement of the SBA, a nonpartisan
Federal agency, with left-leaning organizations in the Agency’s implementation of E.O. 14019. On July 12,
2021, the Biden-Harris Administration held a White House meeting with agencies and representatives from
civil rights “umbrella organizations” describing “affirmative opportunities for [agencies to participate in] voter

52
See U.S. Small Bus. Admin., Memorandum of Understanding (Mar. 18, 2024) (on file with the Committee).
53
Office of the Governor, State of Michigan, Executive Directive No. 2024-3, Updating Michigan’s List of Voter Regis-
tration Agencies (Jun. 20, 2024).
54
E-mail from Karen Kudelko, Senior Deputy Director, Federal Affairs, Office of Governor Gretchen Whitmer, to Laketa Henderson,
Michigan District Director, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., et al. (Dec. 14, 2023, 10:07 AM) (on file with the Committee).
55
E-mail from Jennifer Kim, Associate Adm’r, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Small Bus. Admin, to Meghan Schaar, Associate Legal
Director, Michigan Dep’t of State (Mar. 8, 2024, 12:31 PM) (on file with the Committee).
56
E-mail from Rebecca Galanti, Press Secretary, U.S. Small Bus. Admin, to Jonathan Brater, Director of Elections, Michigan Dep’t of
State, et al (Mar. 12, 2024, 2:31 PM) (on file with the Committee).
57
Jordyn Hermani, Joe Biden plans Michigan campaign stop in Saginaw, which picks winners, Bridge Michigan (Mar. 8, 2024).
58
See Biden campaigns in Michigan in latest visit to battleground state, The Wash. Post (Mar. 14, 2024); See Joey Cappelletti, Biden
visits Michigan county emerging as the swing state’s top bellwether, AP News (Mar. 14, 2024).
59
E-mail from Karen Kudelko, Senior Deputy Director, Federal Affairs, Office of Governor Gretchen Whitmer, to Laketa Henderson,
Michigan District Director, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., (Oct. 26, 2023, 10:42 AM) (on file with the Committee).

12
registration.”60 These left-leaning organizations include but are not limited to Demos and the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU).61 Demos does not reasonably self-identify as a non-partisan organization on its
website, and touts how it “has moved progressive issues from the movement to the mainstream.”62 While the
ACLU explicitly states it is “non-profit and non-partisan,” it has taken a left-leaning position on voting issues
by endorsing Demos’s concept of E.O. 14019, and have taken steps to assist Federal agencies insert themselves
into the election process, a responsibility primarily reserved to the states by the U.S. Constitution.63

Both organizations—Demos and the ACLU—took a primary role in advising the Biden-Harris
Administration’s efforts to register voters under E.O. 14019. For instance, during the July 12, 2021, White
House roundtable meeting on E.O. 14019, Demos and the ACLU presented ways various agencies—including
the SBA—could leverage their current operations to facilitate voter registration. Most alarmingly, Laura
Williamson, on behalf of Demos, stated “don’t stop at voter registration… It’s just the first hurdle.”64

Figure 2: White House Meeting Agenda with Civil Rights Organizations About Affirmative
Opportunities for Voter Registration 65

60
E-mail from Devontae Freeland, Special Assistant, White House Counsel’s Office, to Victor Parker, Deputy Associate Administrator,
Office of Field Operations, U.S. Small Bus. Admin, et al., (Jul. 2, 2021, 4:15 PM) (on file with the Committee); The White House,
Listening Session on Implementation of Executive Order 14019, Federal Agencies and Civil and Voting Rights Organizations, Agenda
(Jul. 12, 2021) (on file with Committee).
61
E-mail from Devontae Freeland, Special Assistant, White House Counsel’s Office, the White House to Victor Parker, Deputy Asso-
ciate Administrator, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Small Bus. Admin, et al., (Jul. 12, 2021, 5:03 PM) (on file with the Committee)
(attached roster of attendees on file with the Committee).
62
About Demos, Demos (last visited Sep. 12, 2024), https://www.demos.org/about.
63
ACLU History, Am. Civil Liberties Union, (last visited Oct. 18, 2024), https://www.aclu.org/about/aclu-history.
64
The White House, Voting EO – Stakeholder Engagement Listening Session w/ Voting Rights Advocates – July 12, 2021 (Jul. 12,
2021) (on file with the Committee).
65
The White House, Listening Session on Implementation of Executive Order 14019, Federal Agencies and Civil and Voting Rights
Organizations, Agenda (Jul. 12, 2021) (on file with Committee).

13
Figure 3: Demos and ACLU Talking Points at the July 12, 2021, White House E.O. 14019 Roundtable
with Voting Rights Activists 66

The Committee discovered that many senior SBA employees have relationships with these left-leaning
organizations. For instance, Julie Verratti and Victor Parker of the SBA’s Office of Field Operations is on official
SBA emails with White House personnel to participate in White House facilitated meetings with these civil
rights “umbrella organizations” about E.O. 14019.67 More recently, in 2024, Ms. Kim participated in a meeting
with the ACLU, who participated in the White House meetings and took a lead role for the entire Biden-Harris
Administration to implement E.O. 14019 across the agencies.68 Notably, the Biden-Harris Administration
“warmly welcomed” these relationships between nonpartisan agencies and left-leaning organizations.69

66
The White House, Voting EO – Stakeholder Engagement Listening Session w/ Voting Rights Advocates – July 12, 2021 (Jul. 12,
2021) (on file with the Committee).
67
Supporting documents on file with the Committee.
68
See Transcribed Interview of Mr. Arthur Plews, Chief of Staff, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., conducted by the House Comm. on Small
Bus., at 156-57 (Jun. 11, 2024).
69
Supporting documents on file with the Committee.

14
Figure 4: White House Personnel “Warmly Welcoming” Engagement with Civil Rights Organizations
and Gratitude for “Ambitious and Creative Approaches” 70

In addition to these meetings, the Biden-Harris Administration acknowledged its gratitude to the SBA
and other cabinet departments “for the ambitious and creative approach” agencies have taken to implement
E.O. 14019.71 It appears the SBA shares the same sentiment by including the responsibility to “offer help in
completing the registration form and offer to transmit it” in the MOU.72 This level of engagement between
left-leaning civil rights organizations and agencies regarding the implementation of E.O. 14019 raises serious
doubts that the SBA’s MOU with Michigan is truly nonpartisan. As discussed below, the MOU’s operative effect
demonstrates how the left-leaning origins of E.O. 14019, and the SBA’s relationship with these organizations,
make the SBA’s voter registration efforts ripe for partisan abuse.
70
Email from Larry Schwartztol, Associate White House Counsel and Special Assistant to the President, The White House, to Victor
Parker, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Small Bus. Admin, et al., (May 26, 2021, 10:27 PM).
71
Id.
72
U.S. Small Bus. Admin., Memorandum of Understanding (Mar. 18, 2024) (on file with Committee).

15
d. The SBA’s MOU with Michigan is Beyond the Scope of the Agency’s Mission and Suggests
Partisanship is Impacting the SBA.

Considering the legal concerns and involvement from left-leaning organizations, the SBA’s MOU with
the State of Michigan displays an inherent entanglement between the SBA’s operations and partisan activities
without regard for the SBA’s mission. The SBA was created to “to aid, counsel, assist and protect the interests of
small business concerns; preserve free competitive enterprise; and maintain and strengthen the overall economy
of our nation.”73 Yet, the MOU aims to “promote civic engagement and voter registration [through] Jan. 1,
2036.”74 This MOU has nothing to do with the SBA’s mission or the legal duties the Agency is charged to fulfill.
Rather, intended or not, this MOU presents an opportunity for partisanship among Biden-Harris appointees
currently leading the SBA. Further, even if the SBA does not intend to use this MOU for partisan purposes,
this interim report illustrates that the language of the MOU and existing biases within the SBA could still lead
to partisan voter registration outcomes. For this reason, and because E.O. 14019 could be abused, the SBA and
other Federal agencies should not participate in the electoral process in this fashion. The founders intended the
states to run their own elections and indicated that the Federal government—as a last resort—ought to involve
itself with the states’ administration of elections only when the actions of states would harm the ability of the
Federal government and Congress to operate.75

Following the SBA’s failure to adequately justify how the MOU relates to the SBA’s mission, the
Committee sought to rule out concerns that the MOU is a targeted or partisan voter registration effort. To rule
these concerns out, the Committee reviewed data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the SBA Office of Advocacy,
and the Michigan Department of State. The Committee then compared this data to the publicly available records
of SBA in-person outreach events, and overlayed this data onto a map of Michigan to assess whether there is a
basis to pursue this investigation. The Committee’s basis for this investigation is illustrated below.

The Committee’s analysis regarding SBA events in Michigan—namely, events with Administrator
Guzman or the SBA Deputy Administrator Dilawar Syed—and in-person SBA’s resource partner events
revealed concerning trends. As a threshold matter, SBA officials traveling to or attending small business
outreach events is not inherently problematic; building connections with small businesses and communities
is indeed valuable. This interim report discusses the travel and events involving senior SBA officials in the
context of the MOU—which permits the SBA to register voters at these events—and considers allegations that
the Biden-Harris SBA indirectly campaigned for the incumbent administration. The partisan political context
surrounding Administrator Guzman and Deputy Administrator Syed’s travel and participation in outreach events
precipitates this investigation, not the mere fact that senior SBA officials travel.

Following the MOU’s announcement, the Committee assessed whether the SBA’s voter registration
efforts under this MOU would occur in areas with the lowest registered voting age populations, or where small
businesses are located. To address the former, the Committee identified which Michigan counties have the
highest and lowest percentage of the voting age population registered to vote. The Committee then assessed
where in-person small business outreach events are taking place in Michigan to determine if these events
correlated with the counties bearing the lowest registered voting populations.

73
Organization, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (last visited Sep. 12, 2024), https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/organization.
74
Press Release, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., SBA Administrator Guzman Announces Agency’s First-Ever Voter Registration Agreement
with Michigan Department of State (Mar. 19, 2024).
75
See The Federalist No. 39 (James Madison); The Federalist No. 59 (Alexander Hamilton).

16
Map 1: Overlap of Top 10 Counties with Highest Percentage of Voting Age Population Registered with
Locations of Visits, Field Offices, Resource Partners, and Outreach Events

Map 1 Sources: U.S. Census; Michigan Department of State.

The Committee determined that the locations of in-person small business outreach events did not
correlate with the counties harboring the lowest voter registration percentages. Specifically, only 5 percent
(5/96) of in-person outreach events occurred in counties with the lowest registered voting population.
Additionally, zero in-person outreach events with Administrator Guzman or Deputy Administrator Syed took
place in these counties. Under a truly nonpartisan voter registration effort, the locations of in-person outreach
events, where the MOU permits voter registration activities, would correlate with the counties with the lowest
percentages of registered voters (highlighted in blue). Map 1 displays very little correlation between low voter
registration rates and voter registration efforts permissible under the MOU, raising questions about whether
the SBA’s motivation to register voters in Michigan involve partisan objectives. Considering Mr. Robinson’s
allegations and the SBA’s relationships with left-leaning organizations, the Committee is seriously concerned
that the SBA’s events in Michigan—specifically involving Administrator Guzman or Deputy Administrator
Syed—may have partisan political undertones which may also impact a voter’s political preference, impacting
far more than mere registration numbers, or the general promotion of voting for any candidate.

The other rationale for this MOU identified by the SBA was to facilitate voter registration of small
business owners. As such, the Committee assessed whether these in-person SBA events—and voter registration
activities under the MOU—truly meet small businesses “where they are.”76 The Committee’s analysis indicated
Press Release, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., SBA Administrator Guzman Announces Agency’s First-Ever Voter Registration Agreement
76

with Michigan Department of State (Mar. 19, 2024).

17
the SBA does not, in fact, meet small businesses where they are. Displayed below, Map 2 illustrates that merely
4 percent (4/96) of in-person small business outreach events took place in counties with the highest shares of
small business employment. Notably, zero in-person outreach events with Administrator Guzman or Deputy
Administrator Syed took place in the county with the highest shares of small business employment.

Map 2: Overlap of Share Small Business Employment and Locations of Visits, Field Offices, Resource
Partners, and Outreach Events

Map 2 Sources: U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration,
Small Business Resource Partner Websites, Michigan Department of State.
Administrator Guzman and Deputy Administrator Syed’s travel patterns in Michigan also show a
general ignorance of counties with the highest shares of small business employment, all while regulatory
burdens and rising costs under the Biden-Harris Administration have resulted in a loss of confidence among
existing Michigan small business owners.77 This MOU raises concerns that the SBA has sought to facilitate a
targeted partisan voter registration campaign while ignoring the small businesses they are tasked with aiding.
This is evidenced by the fact 4 percent of in-person outreach events in Michigan–none involving Administrator
Guzman or Deputy Administrator Syed—occurred in counties with the highest amount of small business
employment. Whether intended or not, this reality also underscores how the SBA has departed from its
mission—and the MOU’s claimed rationale—by failing to meet existing businesses where they are. It is not
mere data that the Committee has analyzed to support this conclusion; the SBA has not shown any evidence to
explain these correlations or resolve concerns that this MOU does not reflect partisan intentions by the SBA.
Small Business Ass’n of Michigan, Survey says: Michigan entrepreneurs struggling with cost increases, even before expensive new
77

mandates kick in on small businesses (Aug. 19, 2024).

18
In summation, the SBA’s stated rationales for the MOU: increasing voter registration, and specifically
registering Michigan small business owners, conflict with the interim findings of the Committee’s investigation,
and appear to be illusory explanations. The Committee suspects that the SBA’s motivation to enter the MOU
was not to merely register voters, especially considering only 5 percent of SBA in-person outreach events occur
in counties with the lowest registered voting age population. Additionally, the Committee cannot conclude that
the SBA’s motivation is to register existing small business owners, because only 4 percent of in-person outreach
events occur in counties with the highest shares of small business employment. Considering Mr. Robinson’s
allegations of partisanship at the SBA, the SBA’s relationship with left-leaning organizations, and Michigan’s
significance to the 2024 general election, the lack of data supporting the SBA’s justifications for the MOU raises
serious concerns that the Agency’s intent to register voters in Michigan is partisan in nature.

19
IV. Use of Taxpayer Resources
a. Anti-Deficiency Act

Congress appropriates taxpayer dollars to the SBA and other Federal agencies to provide them with the
money needed to implement its laws. Because this MOU and voter registration activities are clearly beyond the
scope of the SBA’s mission, the Committee investigated the extent of taxpayer resources utilized by the SBA
to further their get-out-the-vote initiatives instead of furthering the interests of small businesses. Such a use of
taxpayer resources would be inconsistent with the Anti-Deficiency Act.

Generally, the Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits Federal agencies from spending taxpayer dollars Congress
has not appropriated to them; or obligate or use resources in a manner that is outside the Agency’s scope
of authority.78 Furthermore, the Anti-Deficiency Act requires that taxpayer funds are appropriated by time,
function, or program.79 The requirement of specific appropriations under the Act are intended to prevent an
agency that lacks specific funding from committing the Federal government to participate in such program, or
from using funds for a purpose outside the scope of an agency’s authority.80 However, the scope of the Act is
broader than mere disbursement of funding, it includes the assignment of man-hours, the use of technology, or
deployment of other resources at the SBA’s disposal.81 The Act prevents the exhaustion of taxpayer funds while
maintaining avenues for congressional oversight to ensure agency stewardship of taxpayer funds.82

The Committee has serious concerns that the SBA’s voter registration efforts are inconsistent with the
Anti-Deficiency Act. As a threshold matter, Congress has not authorized the SBA to utilize any resources to
register voters. As discussed above, this is because voter registration activities fall outside the common-sense
scope of the SBA’s mission, which is “to aid, counsel, assist and protect the interests of small business concerns;
preserve free competitive enterprise; and maintain and strengthen the overall economy of our nation.”83

The Committee’s investigation yielded several indications that the SBA has dedicated resources to
developing the MOU. Documents reviewed by the Committee illustrate that a substantial number of man-hours
were required to research how to implement E.O. 14019 and develop the MOU. The negotiations over the
MOU’s terms took over two years, and involved instances of SBA staff traveling to Michigan, in part, to help
solidify the obligations under this agreement.84 Further, these documents show that several SBA personnel were
involved in the MOU’s drafting process and coordination with MDOS and other Michigan state officials.85 The
MOU obligates SBA resources for the next 12 years, until 2036.86 The documents also reveal that several drafts
of the MOU were exchanged between the SBA and MDOS —and many meetings occurred with several SBA
and MDOS officials—reflecting careful consideration, attention, and substantial amount of time to finalize the
agreement.87 The Committee also takes notice of the SBA’s questionable hiring decisions, which are discussed
below, and continues to seek information regarding how much of their time was spent on implementing E.O.
14019, provided their partisan political experiences. Unfortunately, the SBA has provided minimal information
78
Sean M. Stiff, Cong. Research Serv., IF11577, Congress’s Power Over Appropriations: A Primer (Jun. 16, 2020); 31 USC §
1341. Specifically, the Act expressly prohibits government employees from making or authorizing expenditures exceeding an amount
available in an appropriation, or otherwise involve the government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an
appropriation is made unless authorized by law. See 31 U.S.C. § 1341 (a)(1)(A)(B).
79
Dominick A. Florentino, Taylor N. Riccard, Cong. Research Serv., R47019, The Executive Budget Process: An Overview,
11 (Feb. 14, 2024).
80
Matter of: GSA—Multiple Award Schedule Multiyear Contracting, 63 Comp. Gen. 129, 130–31 (Dec. 23, 1983).
81
Springfield Parcel C, LLC v. U.S., 124 Fed. Cl. 163 (2015).
82
Dominick A. Florentino, Taylor N. Riccard, Cong. Research Serv., R47019, The Executive Budget Process: An Overview,
11 (Feb. 14, 2024).
83
Organization, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (last visited Sep. 12, 2024), https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/organization.
84
Staff Briefing Between the Small Bus. Admin. and Staff of the H. Comm. on Small Bus., 118th Cong. (May 3, 2024) (statement of
Jennifer Kim, Associate Adm’r, Office of Field Operations).
85
Communications on file with the Committee.
86
U.S. Small Bus. Admin., Memorandum of Understanding (Mar. 18, 2024) (on file with Committee).
87
Communications on file with the Committee.

20
to resolve these questions.

Nevertheless, the SBA claims that implementing E.O. 14019 is a no-cost mandate.88 However, the
Committee knows that, if this were true, every Federal agency would have no issues implementing E.O.
14019. Throughout the course of the investigation, the Committee became aware of documents from other
agencies indicating how accepting a state’s VRA designation requires the use of resources. For example, the
U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) expressed that “the RRB does not have the staffing resources necessary
to be designated as a voter registration agency under the [NVRA], or to assume the tasks related to such a
designation.”89 Additionally, the RBB’s compliance team expressed concern “about the cost of translation
services which may be required to produce materials in languages other than English.”90 Additionally, some
DOL state-level partners expressed they “do not have the bandwidth to implement [E.O. 14019].”91 While
this is an illustrative example of how implementing E.O. 14019 is not a “no-cost” mandate, it is important to
acknowledge that these are different agencies with different resources at their disposal. Despite differences
in resources available to the RRB, DOL, and SBA, these examples illustrate that implementing E.O. 14019
requires the use of resources.

Unfortunately, because the SBA has not fully complied with the Committee’s document requests,
several outstanding questions exist about how many SBA resources were expended to implement E.O. 14019.
Questions regarding the time it took to research, identify and solicit other states to engage in an MOU for voter
registration purposes also remain outstanding.

Additionally, the Committee is concerned about allegations that SBA leadership indirectly campaigned
for President Biden, and Vice President Harris, by utilizing taxpayer-resources. The Committee’s concerns
regarding these travel patterns are compounded by other details such as the SBA’s apparent insufficient training
on Hatch Act compliance for mixed-purpose travel, and the lack of any documents relating to ensuring taxpayer
dollars are not used to engage in political activity prohibited by the Hatch Act.92 However, as this is an interim
report, the Committee is actively pursuing information on the amount of taxpayer resources inappropriately
used for mixed-purpose travel.

b. Hiring Decisions

An alarming example of diverting SBA resources for voter registration activities is also evidenced by
the SBA’s senior personnel decisions. Several senior Biden-Harris SBA officials have far more experience in
campaigning and advocating for left-leaning policies than working on small business issues. The Committee’s
investigation also revealed apparent conflicts of interest from senior SBA employees implementing this MOU
with the State of Michigan. The most notable examples include Jennifer Kim and Jessica Reeves.

i. Jennifer Kim

Jennifer Kim, the Associate Administrator for the SBA Office of Field Operations, the top position of the
SBA office implementing the MOU, was the subject of this Committee’s July 24, 2024, hearing where members

88
See Executive Overreach: Examining the SBA’s Electioneering Efforts with Associate Administrator of Office of Field Operations,
Jennifer Kim: Hearing Before Subcomm. on Oversight, Investigations, and Regulations, H. Comm. Small Bus., 118th Cong 23 (Jul. 24,
2024).
89
U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd., STRATEGIC PLAN for the Implementation of Executive Order 14019, Promoting Access
to Voting, 4 (Sep. 23, 2021) (on file with the Committee).
90
Id., at 3.
91
Email from Holly McKamey Simoni, Workforce Programs Administrator, State of Wyoming, to Kajuana Donahue, Federal Project
Officer/State Liaison, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, et al., (Apr. 27, 2022) (on file with the Committee).
92
See Transcribed Interview of Mr. Arthur Plews, Chief of Staff, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., conducted by the House Comm. on Small
Bus., at 32 (Jun. 11, 2024) (confirming that Administrator Guzman has engaged in at least one “mixed travel” trip).

21
expressed their concerns about her previous get-out-the-vote experience.93 Ms. Kim has been working at the
SBA since approximately October 2022. The Committee immediately questioned why Ms. Kim was selected to
be a senior political appointee for the SBA after a cursory review of her background. Ms. Kim’s biography on
the SBA website speaks for itself:

[Ms. Kim] has dedicated many years to increasing voter registration in communities of color as well as
promoting youth civic engagement. More recently, she worked to strengthen ties between underserved
communities and the public health system to increase vaccination rates. Jennifer is a graduate of
the University of Michigan with a Bachelor of Arts in History and received a master’s in public
administration in Urban and Social Policy from Columbia University’s School of International and
Public Affairs.94

The Committee is also aware that, in 2018, Ms. Kim was involved in an election scandal where Florida
Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffers sent altered state election documents to voters.95 Specifically,
the issue arose from DNC staffers sending forms intended to fix vote-by-mail ballots that had been initially
rejected.96 Amid legal and other concerns, the issue was reportedly discussed throughout DNC emails in which
Ms. Kim participated.97 At the time, Alan Clendenin, serving as the Democratic Vice Chairman, noted these
efforts were “mid-level and [] a bunch of go-getters and young people who wanted to make a difference and
didn’t realize this is a major political party and this is not how you get things done.”98 Ms. Kim, and the SBA,
assure the Committee there are no ulterior motives in hiring Ms. Kim, or her leadership in implementing the
MOU, as Ms. Kim’s campaign experience and fieldwork make her a suitable candidate for the SBA Office of
Field Operations.99 Yet, mere statements have not outweighed the facts discovered throughout the Committee’s
investigation.

The Committee’s concern not only emanates from Ms. Kim’s apparent lack of small business
experience, but her seemingly exclusive work on democratic campaigns and issues. The Committee is also
alarmed by the fact the SBA either hired Ms. Kim knowing her role in the 2018 Florida controversy or failed
to exercise the due diligence to check. These facts support the basis of the Committee’s concern that political
appointees at the SBA lack the ability to perform the functions of the agency, especially under this MOU, on a
nonpartisan basis.

ii. Jessica Reeves

Another SBA official who raised concerns for the Committee is Jessica Reeves, who currently serves
as the SBA Director of Public Engagement.100 While Ms. Reeves has been the Director of Public Engagement
at the SBA, she has also served senior roles including Board Member and Treasurer of the organization Rock
the Vote.101 Rock the Vote is a get-out-the-vote nonprofit aimed at “ensuring every young voter is registered and
ready to vote.”102 Young voters in Michigan were a critical demographic to Democratic candidates, including

93
See Executive Overreach: Examining the SBA’s Electioneering Efforts with Associate Administrator of Office of Field Operations,
Jennifer Kim: Hearing Before Subcomm. on Oversight, Investigations, and Regulations, H. Comm. Small Bus., 118th Cong (Jul. 24,
2024). See also Jennifer Kim, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (last visited Sep. 12, 2024), https://www.sba.gov/person/jennifer-kim.
94
Jennifer Kim, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (last visited Sep. 12, 2024), https://www.sba.gov/person/jennifer-kim. (emphasis added).
95
Matt Dixon and Mark Caputo, Florida Democrats on defense amid election fraud investigation, Politico (Nov. 16, 2018).
96
Id.
97
Id.
98
Id.
99
See Transcribed Interview of Mr. Arthur Plews, Chief of Staff, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., conducted by the House Comm. on Small
Bus., at 102. (Jun. 11, 2024); Executive Overreach: Examining the SBA’s Electioneering Efforts with Associate Administrator of Office
of Field Operations, Jennifer Kim: Hearing Before Subcomm. on Oversight, Investigations, and Regulations, H. Comm. Small Bus.,
118th Cong 28 (Jul. 24, 2024) (statement of Jennifer Kim, Associate Administrator, U.S. Small Bus. Admin.).
100
Press Release, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., Administrator Guzman Applauds President Biden’s New Appointees to the U.S. Small
Business Administration (Oct. 24, 2022).
101
About Us, Rock the Vote (last visited Sep. 12, 2024), https://www.rockthevote.org/about-rock-the-vote/.
102
Homepage, Rock the Vote (last visited Sep. 12, 2024), https://www.rockthevote.org/.

22
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, during the 2024 election.103

In 2020, Rock the Vote partnered with MDOS to develop technology allowing civic groups and other
organizations running voter registration drives to register voters through MDOS’s online registration website,
which appears to be what the SBA is doing.104 The Committee is concerned by the fact another senior SBA
official is heavily involved in get-out-the-vote efforts while working at the SBA. During a transcribed interview
with Arthur Plews, the SBA Chief of Staff, the Committee was informed that Ms. Reeves approached Mr. Plews
about her role with Rock the Vote after the Committee launched its investigation.105

The Committee has outstanding questions regarding whether Ms. Reeves—with her relationship with
Rock the Vote, and Rock the Vote’s relationship to MDOS—had any influence in the SBA’s decision to seek an
MOU with the State of Michigan. The Committee also has unresolved questions about Rock the Vote’s access
to the data transmitted by the technology it helped develop that is employed by MDOS to register voters online,
and whether, as a board member and treasurer, Ms. Reeves has access to that data.

103
See Michael Scherer, Democrats spar over registration as worries over young and minority voters grow, The Wash. Post (Apr. 1,
2024).
104
Press Release, Michigan Dep’t of State, New tool allows civic groups to conduct voter registration drives digitally (Jun. 15, 2024).
105
See Transcribed Interview of Mr. Arthur Plews, Chief of Staff, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., conducted by the House Comm. on Small
Bus., at 150 (Jun. 11, 2024).

23
V. The SBA’s MOU Potentially Violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Considering these facts, the SBA’s MOU with the MDOS also implicates the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) for several reasons. Generally, the APA outlines requirements agencies must follow in order to take
final actions.106 If those requirements are not adhered to, a court may hold an agency’s final action unlawful and
set it aside.107 An agency makes a final action when two criteria are satisfied: first, the action “must mark the
consummation of the agency’s decision-making process—it must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory
nature;” and second, “the action must be one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from
which legal consequences will flow.”108

The MOU is clearly a final agency action under the APA. The SBA’s implementation of E.O. 14019 and
the MOU is not a merely tentative or interlocutory arrangement, as this agreement is final and was extensively
negotiated.109 Further, the very essence of the MOU results in a legal relationship between the SBA and MDOS
where obligations of both parties are established.

Given that the MOU appears to be a final action, the APA authorizes a court to find it unlawful if it is
“arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion.”110 An agency’s action is arbitrary and capricious if, among
other factors, the action is so “implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of
agency expertise.”111 The stark contrast between the purpose of the SBA and voter registration activities cannot
be ascribed to a simple difference in view. Further, there is no precedent for such an MOU, as the SBA has
conceded the agreement is the “first of its kind collaboration for the SBA.”112 Congress has never authorized
the SBA to solicit critical battleground states and offer help registering voters. While the SBA may claim that
the NVRA grants it the general authority to perform these activities, it is unclear whether a court would find
that position viable. The NVRA is the method by which Congress dictated the limited extent to which Federal
agencies may engage in voter registration activities. E.O. 14019, however, does not reflect the limited nature to
which the Federal government can engage in voter registration activities under the NVRA.

Furthermore, “decisions featuring unjustifiable bias or partisanship are precisely the types of agency
actions” that are arbitrary and capricious.113 E.O. 14019 and the SBA’s MOU reflect decisions that will
inevitably result in partisan outcomes and the appearance of bias. The fact that E.O. 14019 is the Biden-
Harris Administration’s adoption of recommendations from Demos, a left-wing organization that “pioneers”
progressive policies and works to implement them, speaks for itself.114 Additionally, despite claims by the SBA
that the MOU expressly prohibits registering voters in a partisan way, the SBA has failed to show the MOU’s
design will realistically avoid partisan outcomes regardless of the SBA’s intent.115

Finally, the APA permits courts to hold unlawful and set aside final agency action that is “in excess
of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.”116 Here, it appears the SBA’s
implementation of E.O. 14019 exceeds the limited scope of statutory authority under the NVRA because
Congress cabined the role of Federal agencies in voter registration to be a response to requests from the
states, not the other way around. In this case, the SBA solicited Michigan, acting outside of its narrow grant
106
5 U.S.C. § 704.
107
See e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
108
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997).
109
Staff Briefing Between the Small Bus. Admin. and Staff of the H. Comm. on Small Bus., 118th Cong. (May 3, 2024) (statement of
Jennifer Kim, Associate Adm’r, Office of Field Operations). See Press Release, The White House, FACT SHEET: The Biden-Harris
Administration is Taking Action to Restore and Strengthen American Democracy (Dec. 8, 2021).
110
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
111
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
112
Press Release, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., SBA Administrator Guzman Announces Agency’s First-Ever Voter Registration Agreement
with Michigan Department of State (Mar. 19, 2024).
113
See Level the Playing Field v. FEC, 961 F.3d 462, 464 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
114
About Demos, Demos (last visited Sep. 12, 2024), https://www.demos.org/about.
115
See U.S. Small Bus. Admin., Memorandum of Understanding (Mar. 18, 2024) (on file with Committee).
116
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B), (C).

24
of statutory authority under the NVRA. Moreover, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright
Enterprises v. Raimondo, it is unclear whether E.O. 14019 complies with the APA. The Loper Bright Court
found that there is a single, best understanding of a statute, and the Biden-Harris Administration, through E.O.
14019, upending years of practice under the NVRA, is unlikely to represent the best understanding of the
NVRA.117

Thus, E.O. 14019’s broad command of all agencies to become involved in voter registration exceeds
the scope of the NVRA, and in turn, the President’s constitutional authority. Consequently, the SBA’s
implementation of E.O. 14019 also exceeds such authority and could implicate the APA’s provision to set aside
such final agency actions.

117
See Loper Bright Enter’s. v. Raimondo, 144 S.Ct. 2244, 2258, 2266 (2024).

25
VI. Broader Partisan Concerns and Potential Hatch Act Concerns at the SBA
a. Hidden-Camera Video Alleging Partisanship at the SBA

Considering the Committee’s concerns about the SBA’s implementation of E.O. 14019 and the MOU,
after the video of Mr. Robinson alleging senior SBA officials were indirectly campaigning for President Biden
was published, the Committee expanded its investigation to broadly probe the degree of partisanship at the
SBA—beyond the MOU with Michigan. The Committee specifically sought to assess whether the SBA engages
in partisan political activities through Administrator Guzman’s and Deputy Administrator Syed’s travel, which
is generally prohibited by the Hatch Act. Notably, the SBA has categorically denied the allegations, and similar
to the SBA’s response to the Committee’s questions regarding the MOU, the SBA has stonewalled nearly all
requests for information arising from the allegations in the Robinson video.

Exercising due diligence, the Committee sought to independently ascertain the validity of Mr.
Robinson’s allegations. As described below, the Committee’s analysis of available information, including 154
trips taken by Administrator Guzman and Deputy Administrator Syed, corroborated some of Mr. Robinson’s
allegations and reinforced the Committee’s concerns of partisanship at the SBA. The Committee’s analysis of
trips taken by Administrator Guzman and Deputy Administrator Syed revealed that Michigan was the most
frequent destination for SBA outreach during the Biden-Harris Administration outside of the Washington, D.C.
region.

b. The Hatch Act

The Hatch Act regulates partisan political activities of most Federal executive branch employees.118 The
Act separates covered Federal employees into two classes—less restricted and further restricted—with different
restrictions on political activities for each class.119 The Committee’s focus is on the latter group—the “further
restricted” class of employees—because they are prohibited at all times from participating in partisan political
activity on behalf of a political party, partisan political group, or candidate in a partisan election.120 Federal
employees in the “further restricted” class include employees in the Senior Executive Service (SES) and career
appointees, among others.121 “Further restricted” employees may not, among other things, take an active part
in partisan political management, such as expressing opinions directed “at the success or failure of a political
party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group” while on duty, or assist “in partisan
voter registration drives.”122

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the Federal agency tasked with Hatch Act enforcement, has
released several advisory opinions regarding what counts as expressing opinions directed “at the success or
failure of a political party, candidate for partisan office, or partisan political group.”123 The OSC has elaborated
that, while on duty or in the workplace, Federal employees may not wear, display, or distribute items with
campaign slogans from the 2016, 2020, or 2024 Trump presidential campaign, or the 2020 or 2024 Biden (and

118
See Whitney K. Novak, Cong. Research Serv., IF11512, The Hatch Act: A Primer (Apr. 20, 2020).
119
Id., at 1-2.
120
Id.
121
Federal Employee Hatch Act Information, U.S. Office of Special Counsel (last visited Sep. 13, 2024), https://osc.gov/Services/Pag-
es/HatchAct-Federal.aspx#tabGroup31|tabGroup53|tabGroup11. See also 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(2)-(4) (defining what an SES employee
and career appointee is as it relates to the Hatch Act’s applicability).
122
Id.
123
See U.S. Off. of Special Counsel, Hatch Act Advice for Federal Employees Now that Former President Trump is a Presi-
dential Candidate (Dec. 14, 2022); U.S. Off. of Special Counsel, Advisory Opinion Regarding the Hatch Act and President
Joseph Biden Now that He Is a Candidate for Reelection (Apr. 26, 2023); U.S. Off. of Special Counsel, The Hatch Act and
the Use of Administrative Leave to Participate in Nonpartisan Poll Activities (May. 18, 2022); U.S. Off. of Special Counsel,
Hatch Act Advisory Opinion Regarding the Use of Presidential Campaign Slogans (Jun. 7, 2023).

26
Vice President Harris’s) presidential campaign.124 Some of the prohibited language includes, but is not limited
to phrases such as “MAGA,” or “Build Back Better.”125

While the Hatch Act generally prohibits Federal executive branch employees from engaging in
political activity, there are notable exceptions as to whom the Act applies. The President and Vice President are
completely exempt.126 Additionally, Federal executive employees who are deemed to be always on duty and
who are appointed by the President with Senate confirmation (PAS) have specific exemptions. PAS employees
whose duties and responsibilities continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post
may engage in political activity on the job or while in a Federal workplace, provided the costs are not paid for
by money derived from the Treasury.127 PAS employees are still subject to the Hatch Act’s other prohibitions,
such as using their official authority or influence to affect the result of an election.128
It is also worth noting that executive branch employees may engage in “mixed travel,” where an
exempt employee attends both official and political events during the same trip. For instance, under most
circumstances, an exempt employee at the SBA can fly to a small business event using SBA funds, attend the
SBA event, and then attend a political event in the same trip. However, in this instance, the costs associated
with the exempt employee’s attendance at the political event may not be paid with taxpayer funds.129 When such
circumstances arise, agencies must apportion the travel costs between the Federal government and the relevant
political organization or candidate, and ensure that the Treasury is appropriately reimbursed.130 The OSC
clearly articulates the formula used to calculate reimbursement, and emphasizes the importance of obtaining
reimbursement as soon as possible.131 The Committee questions whether such reimbursements for SBA
employees have properly been made. To date, no documents have been provided to the Committee regarding
mixed travel at the SBA.
c. The Committee’s Investigation into the Alleged Partisan Activities at the SBA

Mr. Robinson’s allegations amplified the Committee’s concerns about the potentially partisan design
of the MOU and immediately called into question whether Administrator Guzman and Deputy Administrator
Syed’s travel to Michigan and participation in small business outreach events were “mixed” travel under the
Hatch Act, requiring the SBA’s accounting to reimburse taxpayer dollars for campaign activities. With the
SBA’s new ability to facilitate voter registration at in-person outreach events under the MOU, the Committee
sought to discern what, if any, events in Michigan have taken place where a voter could both be registered and
could possibly have their political views influenced at the same forum.

Immediately following the release of the video, the Committee requested Mr. Robinson and his
supervisor, Mr. Plews, to appear for a voluntary transcribed interview (TI) to assess the veracity of Mr.
Robinson’s claims.132 One week later, the Committee discovered a request for an investigation into the SBA

124
See U.S. Off. of Special Counsel, Hatch Act Advice for Federal Employees Now that Former President Trump is a Presi-
dential Candidate (Dec. 14, 2022); U.S. Off. of Special Counsel, Advisory Opinion Regarding the Hatch Act and President
Joseph Biden Now that He Is a Candidate for Reelection (Apr. 26, 2023); U.S. Off. of Special Counsel, Hatch Act Advisory
Opinion Regarding the Use of Presidential Campaign Slogans (Jun. 7, 2023).
125
Id.
126
Whitney K. Novak, Cong. Research Serv., IF11512, The Hatch Act: A Primer, 1 (Apr. 20, 2020).
127
5 USC § 7324(b)(1)-(2); U.S. Off. of Special Counsel, OSC Advisory Regarding Mixed Travel by Presidentially-Appointed
/ Senate Confirmed (PAS) Employees, 1 (Oct. 6, 2011). However, the Hatch Act only exempts PAS employees whose position is
located within the United States and who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in
the nationwide administration of Federal laws; See 5 USC § 7324(b)(2)(B)(ii).
128
See 5 USC § 7323(a).
129
5 USC § 7324(b)(1). See U.S. Off. of Special Counsel, OSC Advisory Regarding Mixed Travel by Presidentially-Appoint-
ed / Senate Confirmed (PAS) Employees, 1 (Oct. 6, 2011).
130
Id., at 3.
131
Id., at 1. See 5 C.F.R. § 734.503(c)(1).
132
See Letter from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, to Isabella Casillas Guzman, Administrator, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (Apr. 18,
2024).

27
for additional alleged Hatch Act violations by SBA officials.133 On April 25, 2024, Protect the Public’s Trust
(PPT), a nongovernmental organization comprised of retired and former public servants, wrote the SBA with
specific examples, supported by FOIA documents, of SBA officials appearing to violate the Hatch Act.134
This discovery further undermined the trust in the SBA’s compliance with the Hatch Act and, in turn, the
nonpartisan implementation of the MOU. After neither Mr. Plews nor Mr. Robinson appeared for voluntary
interviews on May 2 and May 3, 2024, the Committee was forced to issue subpoenas for their depositions.135
After negotiations between the SBA and the Committee, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Plews voluntarily participated
in TIs with the Committee on June 3, 2024, and June 11, 2024, nearly two months after the Committee initially
requested to conduct the TIs.

The Committee was concerned to learn about the minimal Hatch Act training SBA employees have
received throughout the Biden-Harris Administration during the TIs. Specifically, the Committee learned during
Mr. Plews’ June 11, 2024 TI that, during his tenure at the SBA, he has received two Hatch Act trainings, both
taking place during 2024, and that Mr. Plews could not recall Hatch Act trainings from 2021 until early 2024.136
The Committee continues to actively pursue information on the amount of taxpayer resources inappropriately
used for mixed-purpose travel.

133
Letter from Michael Chamberlain, Director, Protect the Public’s Trust, to Hampton Dellinger, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Hatch
Act Unit, et al. (Apr. 25, 2024).
134
About Us, Protect the Public’s Trust (last visited Sep. 15, 2024), https://protectpublicstrust.org/about-us/; Letter from Michael
Chamberlain, Director, Protect the Public’s Trust, to Hampton Dellinger, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Hatch Act Unit, et al. (Apr.
25, 2024).
135
See Subpoena from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, to Tyler Robinson, Special Advisor, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (May 7, 2024);
Subpoena from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., to Arthur Plews, Chief of Staff, U.S. Small Bus. Admin.
(May 7, 2024).
136
See Transcribed Interview of Mr. Arthur Plews, Chief of Staff, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., conducted by the House Comm. on Small
Bus., at 67-68 (Jun. 11, 2024).

28
VII. The SBA’s Stonewalling and Transparency Failures
a. Unresponsive to the Committee’s Requests for Information Regarding the MOU and Travel
Information of Senior SBA Officials

Since this investigation formally began on April 4, 2024, the SBA has consistently failed to be forthright
and transparent with the Committee. As of the publication of this interim report, the Committee has received
nearly 3000 pages of information from the SBA. As described below, the information was often duplicative,
unresponsive to the Committee’s requests, or both. Further, the quality and pace of the SBA’s document
productions forced the Committee to rely on public resources for two-thirds of the information supporting this
interim report.

The SBA has failed to produce documents in a responsive and timely fashion throughout this
investigation. On April 4, 2024, the Committee formally sent a letter to the SBA requesting information about
the MOU with the State of Michigan to be produced no later than April 18, 2024.137 A month elapsed before any
documents were produced to the Committee.138 On May 16, 2024, the Committee requested the calendars, travel
itineraries, trip summaries and any documents memorializing reimbursement for costs associated with political
activities under the Hatch Act for 11 SBA officials.139 After two months of outstanding requests and receipt of
few responsive documents, the Committee re-requested the information on July 15, 2024.140 The SBA failed
to produce anything by the deadline listed in the July 15 request, and the Committee was forced to subpoena
the information on July 30, 2024.141 Throughout August 2024, the Committee received nearly 400 pages of
primarily unresponsive information. On September 17, 2024, just hours before the Committee held an oversight
hearing with Administrator Guzman, the SBA produced pages of Administrator Guzman’s official calendar
entries for the first time, four months after the Committee’s initial request for them.142

Beyond producing documents, the TIs conducted with SBA officials raised more questions than provided
answers. For instance, when questioned by Committee staff, Mr. Plews indicated that he lacked awareness or
knowledge nearly 200 times in response to the Committee’s questions.143 The Committee is concerned about the
SBA Chief of Staff’s substantial lack of knowledge or recollection of major actions taken at the SBA, especially
regarding this “first of its kind,” voter registration initiative.

While the SBA’s general inability or unwillingness to be transparent is troubling, it is substantially more
concerning that the SBA provided misleading responses to the Committee’s inquiries. Specifically, in response
to the Committee’s request for “interim and final reports drafted and submitted to the White House under
Executive Order 14019,” the SBA, either intentionally or negligently, inaccurately claimed that no responsive
document existed. The Committee first requested this document in its April 4, 2024, letter to the SBA.144

137
Letter from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin.
(Apr. 4, 2024).
138
See Letter from George Holman, Assoc. Adm’r, Cong. and Legislative Affairs, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., to Roger Williams, Chair-
man, H. Comm. on Small Bus., et. al. (May 10, 2024).
139
Letter from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin.
(May 16, 2024).
140
Letter from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin.
(Jul. 15, 2024).
141
Letter from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin.
(Jul. 30, 2024). Prior to the July 15 request and subsequent subpoena, the SBA had provided less than 400 pages of largely duplica-
tive documents, only responding to a fraction of what was requested. See Letter from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, H. Comm. on
Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (Jul. 30, 2024).
142
Supporting documents on file with the Committee. See Letter from George Holman, Assoc. Adm’r, Cong. and Legislative Affairs,
U.S. Small Bus. Admin., to Roger Williams, Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., (Sep. 17, 2024).
143
See Transcribed Interview of Mr. Arthur Plews, Chief of Staff, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., conducted by the House Comm. on Small
Bus. (Jun. 11, 2024).
144
Letter from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin.
(Apr. 4, 2024).

29
This document was among the many the SBA failed to produce voluntarily and was therefore included in the
Committee’s July 30, 2024 subpoena.145

In response to the subpoena, the SBA initially claimed that no such document existed to Committee
staff. Believing this was untrue, Committee staff followed up with SBA staff on two subsequent occasions to
provide the SBA with more context and a chance to correct itself. For example, on one occasion, Committee
staff directed the SBA to the specific provision of E.O. 14019 requiring said report. The SBA nevertheless
maintained its position that no such document existed. Provided the fact E.O. 14019 required the SBA to submit
said report, the Committee found the SBA’s claim to be highly suspect. Additionally, if this was true, the SBA’s
insubordination of the President’s E.O. would create other concerns.

The Committee eventually identified Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation wherein the SBA
states, under oath, that it did create and submit a draft report to the White House in compliance with E.O.
14019.146 Upon identifying this litigation, the Committee was deeply concerned that the SBA had intentionally,
if not materially, misled the Committee regarding the existence of this document. Were this the case, not only
would the SBA’s lack of candor raise concerns about the accuracy of the SBA’s productions, limited as they may
have been, but would also raise substantial legal concerns.

For instance, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, knowingly and willfully making false statements to Federal
investigators, including Committee staff, is unlawful.147 Further, obstructing Congress is punishable under
the law. Given that this document was subject of multiple protracted FOIA cases, the Committee struggles
to believe the SBA staff responsible for this production were unaware of this document. While it is possible
that SBA unintentionally misled the Committee, the Committee continues to investigate whether SBA acted
intentionally to withhold this document.

145
Subpoena from H. Comm. On Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (Jul. 30, 2024).
146
See U.S. Small Bus. Admin. Decl., Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 22-cv-3029, 2 (D.D.C. Jan. 11, 2023) (Ex-
hibit A) (on file with the Committee).
147
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (2022); 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (2022).

30
Figure 5: SBA Court Declaration that an Implementation Plan was Transmitted to the White House 148

Hoping to elicit some form of explanation from the SBA, the Committee then directed the SBA to this
FOIA litigation in its August 16, 2024, letter.149 In response, the SBA claimed that this FOIA litigation was
“consistent” with the SBA’s claims that no such document existed; as the document in the FOIA case was not
“final.”150 Further, the SBA then pointed to the case itself, which found that the SBA did not have to produce the
document under a FOIA exception.151 This response was entirely inadequate. Later, in a letter sent on October 9,
2024, the SBA elaborated that it did not understand the Committee’s request for “interim and final reports,” to
mean the draft strategic plan it submitted to the White House. 152
148
U.S. Small Bus. Admin. Decl., Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 22-cv-3029, 2 (D.D.C. Jan. 11, 2023) (Exhibit A)
(on file with the Committee).
149
Letter from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin.
(Aug. 16, 2024).
150
Letter from George Holman, Assoc. Adm’r, Congressional and Legislative Affairs, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. to Roger Williams,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus (Aug. 30, 2024).
151
Id.
152
Letter from Georga Holman, Assoc. Adm’r, Congressional and Legislative Affairs, U.S. Small Bus. Admin to Roger Williams,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus (Oct. 9, 2024).

31
Unfortunately, the Committee anticipated this specific type of gamesmanship by the SBA, which is
why the Committee’s initial request was written broadly.153 Furthermore, the SBA’s informal citation of a FOIA
exemption is an extremely insufficient basis to withhold documents from a congressional committee fulfilling
its duty to conduct oversight. This is because Congress’s ability to conduct oversight is rooted in the U.S.
Constitution, not the Freedom of Information Act. As such, agencies are not permitted to withhold documents it
may otherwise withhold from the public under FOIA exemptions.154 Specifically, the FOIA exemption the SBA
references, Exemption 5, includes privileges the Committee and Congress do not recognize.155

Moreover, under the terms of the subpoena, the SBA is required to identify and explain all documents
that are responsive to the subpoena but cannot be produced.156 The SBA at no point attempted to do this, instead
simply claiming that no responsive document exists. There is a tremendous difference between a document
that does not exist, and one which cannot be produced for another reason. Committee staff again met with
SBA staff, who then generally conceded the requested document did exist. Committee staff then explained the
process the SBA should take to properly withhold this document, should it seek to do so. As of the publication
of this interim report, the Committee is of the understanding that the SBA is currently going through the process
required to assert privilege on this document.

The Committee hoped that its subsequent interactions with the SBA would provide some insight into
the SBA’s initial intentions in withholding the document, but these efforts only raised further concerns. While
the Committee believes that the SBA’s failure to produce this document constitutes a reckless disregard for
the quality and truthfulness of its productions, there is currently insufficient evidence to suggest whether this
was done maliciously. Certain actions, such as the substandard legal analysis in the SBA’s response to the
Committee’s letter informing it of the FOIA litigation, suggest that the SBA, at the very least, has failed to
engage with the Committee in good faith. Conversely, discussions with SBA employees have shown that the
SBA’s history as a relatively small agency has resulted in institutional unfamiliarity with the level of oversight
performed on agencies managing hundreds of billions of dollars, including claims of unfamiliarity with the
process of compiling a privilege log.

Notably, while the Committee has requested all relevant communications dating back to 2021, which is
when the SBA’s implementation plans were being created and finalized, the SBA also failed to produce a single
communication prior to August 2022. The 2021 implementation plans and the surrounding communications
are imperative to the Committee’s investigation to understand how the SBA is planning to implement E.O.
14019, beyond the MOU, and what resources those plans require. The Committee is confident the SBA’s
implementation plans are likely to have this information, based on other agency implementation plans reviewed
by the Committee, such as the RRB, discussing questions involving costs, legal concerns, and the agency’s
justification for engaging in voter registration activities.

The SBA has also obscured where the Committee can find relevant public information. For instance,
the Committee asked where information about the travel of senior SBA officials could be found, and the SBA
directed the Committee to “check Twitter.”157 Informing congressional investigators that they should consider
checking social media for information is an inappropriate response to legitimate congressional oversight
requests. To highlight this, when the Committee reviewed official Twitter accounts of relevant SBA officials,
it appeared that Ms. Kim’s Twitter account has her official government account set to private, despite it clearly
being labeled an “official” account. 158

Furthermore, when the Committee did receive information from the SBA about the travel of senior
153
See Letter from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin.
(Apr. 4, 2024).
154
See Watkins v. United States, 354 US. 178, 187 (1957).
155
5 U.S.C. § 552b (2016).
156
Subpoena from H. Comm. On Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (Jul. 30, 2024).
157
Staff Briefing Between the Small Bus. Admin. and Staff of the H. Comm. on Small Bus., 118th Cong. (May 3, 2024) (statement of
Jennifer Kim, Associate Adm’r, Office of Field Operations).
158
See Jennifer Kim (@SBAJenniferKim), Twitter (last visited Sep. 16, 2024), https://x.com/SBAJenniferKim.

32
SBA officials, it was either vague, irrelevant, or unrequested.159 Additionally, while Mr. Plews confirmed that at
least one trip to Michigan “in the last several months” was considered “mixed travel” under the Hatch Act, no
evidence has been provided to the Committee that the SBA sought reimbursement from the campaign, which is
required under the Hatch Act, and no further details have been provided about the mixed-purpose trip to date.160
While the SBA claims the Committee’s investigation into political travel is “baseless,” the number of questions
surrounding the SBA’s compliance with the Hatch Act has precipitated the OSC launching an investigation into
the Agency, which is currently ongoing.161

Administrator Guzman has also contradicted several statements made by her Chief of Staff and other
officials relating to the SBA’s implementation of E.O. 14019 and the SBA’s cooperation with this Committee’s
investigation. For instance, during the Committee’s September 18, 2024, hearing with Administrator Guzman,
Committee members learned that the SBA had plans to expand their get-out-the-vote efforts, as Administrator
Guzman testified that the SBA had “been reaching out to dozens of States.”162 However, three months prior,
the Committee was told by Mr. Plews that the SBA previously had plans to expand the effort, but did not go
so far as to indicate plans still existed.163 In fact, Mr. Plews indicated that the SBA was previously considering
two additional states to solicit for get-out-the-vote efforts.164 While it is possible the SBA had reached out to
dozens of states between the time both statements were made, the Agency has failed to provide any documents
to confirm which is true. Additionally, Administrator Guzman testified the MOU is nothing more than posting a
URL on the SBA’s website.165 However, the language of the MOU indicates otherwise. This was confirmed by
Ms. Kim when she offered conflicting testimony that the MOU encompasses “[the URL] and [the ability for the
SBA to] invite MDOS to come table at [SBA] events.”166

While these discrepancies in the SBA’s representations to the Committee underscore how the SBA
has been obstructive to the Committee’s investigation, the SBA has also grossly overstated its cooperation
throughout this investigation in the public eye. The night before the Committee’s September 18, 2024, hearing,
the SBA produced nearly 2,000 pages of documents. Just over half of the pages were new information, the
remaining pages were the six prior productions reproduced together. None of the prior productions included
calendar entries, or several other documents and communications requested by the Committee. Yet, during
the September 18, 2024, Committee hearing, Administrator Guzman testified to the Committee that the SBA
“had already sent over 1200 pages of official calendar entries [and] 3,000 pages in response to eight different
production response[s].”167 Further, Administrator Guzman continued by testifying the September 17, 2024,
production “was more calendar items for additional months.”168 Given that the Committee received the vast,
overwhelming majority of the documents Administrator Guzman referenced just hours before her testimony,
citing this production as evidence of the SBA’s good faith displays the SBA’s misleading statements in the
159
See Letter from George Holman, Assoc. Adm’r, Cong. and Legislative Affairs, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., to Roger Williams, Chair-
man, H. Comm. on Small Bus., et. al. (Jun. 14, 2024) (production on file with the Committee).
160
See Transcribed Interview of Mr. Arthur Plews, Chief of Staff, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., conducted by the House Comm. on Small
Bus., at 32 (Jun. 11, 2024).
161
Letter from George Holman, Assoc. Adm’r, Cong. and Legislative Affairs, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., to Roger Williams, Chairman,
H. Comm. on Small Bus., (Aug. 13, 2024).
162
Holding the SBA Accountable: Testimony from Small Business Administrator Guzman, Hearing Before H. Comm. on Small Bus.,
118th Cong. 48 (Sep. 18, 2024) (statement of Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin).
163
See Transcribed Interview of Mr. Arthur Plews, Chief of Staff, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., conducted by the House Comm. on Small
Bus., at 77 (Jun. 11, 2024).
164
Id.
165
Holding the SBA Accountable: Testimony from Small Business Administrator Guzman, Hearing Before H. Comm. on Small Bus.,
118th Cong. 16 (Sep. 18, 2024) (statement of Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin).
166
See e.g., Holding the SBA Accountable: Testimony from Small Business Administrator Guzman, Hearing Before H. Comm. on
Small Bus., 118th Cong. 16 (Sep. 18, 2024) (statement of Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin); Executive Overreach:
Examining the SBA’s Electioneering Efforts with Associate Administrator of Office of Field Operations, Jennifer Kim: Hearing Before
Subcomm. on Oversight, Investigations, and Regulations, H. Comm. Small Bus., 118th Cong 20 (Jul. 24, 2024) (statement of Jennifer
Kim, Associate Administrator, U.S. Small Bus. Admin.).
167
Holding the SBA Accountable: Testimony from Small Business Administrator Guzman, Hearing Before H. Comm. on Small Bus.,
118th Cong. 31 (Sep. 18, 2024) (statement of Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin).
168
Id.

33
public eye. Prior to the SBA’s September 17, 2024, production, the Committee received seven productions,
not eight; the productions only consisted of a few hundred pages of largely duplicative information, with no
calendar entries. This reality was in stark contrast to the 3,000 pages of information—with calendar entries—
Administrator Guzman claimed to have already produced to the Committee.

34
VIII. Conclusion
The SBA cannot meet its obligations under this MOU while doing their congressionally mandated job in
a nonpartisan way. Small business owners and employees alike transcend party lines. The SBA’s sole purpose is
to aid and support all small businesses. Unfortunately, this MOU makes the American people question whether
the SBA is working to help small businesses or serving partisan ends.

The SBA should have never signed this MOU with Michigan. As this interim report illustrates, the MOU
is unsupported by Federal and Michigan law. Furthermore, the SBA’s MOU with the State of Michigan and
its travel activity indicates the Agency’s motivations are untethered to voter registration or supporting small
businesses. Rather, the SBA’s selection of Michigan and existing relationships with left-leaning organizations
suggest the Agency is registering voters to effectuate a partisan outcome.

While the SBA’s reach is relatively limited compared to other agencies, the SBA’s activities under the
MOU are part of a much larger, “whole-of-government” approach to becoming more involved with elections.
Agencies outside of the SBA are also performing actions under E.O. 14019, and these actions create significant
concerns about the role of the Federal agencies in the states’ administration of elections. While this interim
report focuses on the SBA, it is important to recognize that the SBA is only one of many Federal agencies.

Across the executive branch, several agencies have taken steps to implement E.O. 14019. For instance,
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development sent guidance to the executive directors of more than
3,000 public housing authorities managing about 1.2 million housing units, advising them on how to run voter
registration drives through public housing agencies, how to apply to become a voter registration agency under
the NVRA, and how to set up drop boxes for ballots on the premises.169 Additionally, several other agencies
have also met with left-leaning nonprofit organizations while implementing E.O. 14019. Notably, the Office of
the U.S. Trade Representative sought to partner with “civic engagement organizations (e.g., Asian Americans
Advancing Justice, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Pan-Hellenic Council,
Brennan Center for Justice) in developing and amplifying content for these online engagements” in its E.O.
14019 implementation plan.170

This whole-of-government implementation has raised a variety of constitutional and political concerns.
In Congress, several committees and members questioned the constitutionality of E.O. 14019. For instance,
the Committee wrote the SBA about constitutional concerns and initially inquired about the SBA’s plans to
implement E.O. 14019 on June 15, 2022.171 The same day, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform
wrote letters both the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and U.S. General Services Administration, which
were signed by 19 members of Congress.172 In July 2022, the House Judiciary Committee wrote the White
House DPC and Office of Management and Budget raising constitutional questions and expressing concern over
the “apparent collusion with a left-wing special interest group—to misuse government resources for selective
voter turn-out operations.”173 Beyond congressional concerns, in August 2022, 15 state secretaries expressed
constitutional concerns and requested President Biden to rescind E.O. 14019.174 Additionally, several nonprofit
organizations filed Federal lawsuit after the Biden-Harris Administration failed to respond to their respective
169
Weaponizing Federal Resources: Exposing the SBA’s Voter Registration Efforts: Hearing Before H. Comm. on Small Bus., 118th
Cong. (June 3, 2024) (opening statement of Stewart Whitson, Senior Director of Federal Affairs, The Foundation for Government
Accountability).
170
Office of the U.S. Trade Rep., STRATEGIC PLAN for the Implementation of Executive Order 14019, Access to Voting, 2
(Sep. 23, 2021) (on file with the Committee).
171
Letter from Blaine Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Small Bus., et al., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus.
Admin. (June 15, 2022).
172
Letter from James Comer, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Oversight and Reform, et al., to Kiran Ahuja, Director, U.S. Off. of
Personnel Mgmt. (Jun. 15, 2022); Letter from James Comer, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Oversight and Reform, et al., to Robin
Carnahan, Adm’r, U.S. General Serv’s Admin. (Jun. 15, 2022).
173
Letter from Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, et al., to Susan E. Rice, Director, Domestic Policy Council,
The White House, et al. (Jul. 15, 2022).
174
Letter from John Merrill, Sec’y of State, Alabama, et al., to Joe Biden, President of the United States (Aug. 3, 2022).

35
FOIA requests to obtain documents pertaining to E.O. 14019.175

It is the Committee’s sincere hope that the SBA complies with the ongoing parallel investigations into
the Agency, including the OSC investigation. For the sake of Main Street, the Committee hopes that the SBA
returns to serving small businesses, addresses the partisanship within the SBA, and starts becoming more
transparent with Congress and the American taxpayer.

175
See e.g., Am. First Legal Foundation v. U.S. Dep’t of Ag., et al., No. 22-3029, 2023 WL 4581313, *1, *2 (D.D.C. July 18, 2023).

36
APPENDIX

Appendix 1: List of Abbreviations

U.S. Small Business Administration = SBA

Executive Order 14019, Promoting Access to Voting = E.O. 14019

Memorandum of Agreement / Memorandum of Understanding between = MOU
the SBA and Michigan Department of State

Michigan Department of State = MDOS

U.S. Department of Labor = DOL

U.S. Railroad Retirement Board = RRB

National Voter Registration Act of 1993 = NVRA

Administrative Procedure Act = APA

Voter Registration Agency = VRA

U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs = VA

Freedom of Information Act = FOIA

Protect the Public’s Trust = PPT

Transcribed Interview = TI

Office of Special Counsel = OSC

Senior Executive Service = SES

37
Presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed Federal government em- = PAS
ployee

Democratic National Committee = DNC

Republican National Committee = RNC

American Civil Liberties Union = ACLU

White House Domestic Policy Council = DPC

38
Appendix 2: Timeline

2020

Dec. Demos recommends that the Biden-Harris Administration “direct federal
Dec. 3
2020 agencies to provide voter registration services.”176
2021

Mar.
Mar. 10 President Biden Releases E.O. 14019, Promoting Access to Voting.177
2021
Apr. First White House Interagency Policy Meeting (IPC) on Implementing E.O.
Apr. 9
2021 14019.178
May Julie Verratti and Victor Parker Attend Second IPC Meeting on Behalf of
May 21
2021 SBA’s Office of Field Operations.179
Jun.
Jun. 15 Initial Interim Report Due to White House on Implementing E.O. 14019.180
2021
Verratti and Parker Attend White House Roundtable with Election Officials
Jul. 1
Jul. Regarding Implementing E.O. 14019.181
2021 White House Holds Roundtable with Voting Rights Advocates Regarding
Jul. 12
Implementing E.O. 14019.182
Aug.
Aug. 21 Administrator Guzman Travels to Michigan.183
2021
Sep. Agency Strategic Plans for Implementing E.O. 14019 Due to White House
Sep. 23
2021 Office of Domestic Policy.184
Dec. White House Announces the SBA Became the First Federal Agency to Re-
Dec. 8
2021 quest Designation as a Voter Registration Agency Under the NVRA.185

176
Demos, Executive Action to Advance Democracy: What the Biden-Harris Administration and the Agencies Can Do to
Build a More Inclusive Democracy (Dec. 3, 2020).
177
Exec. Order No. 14019, 86 Fed. Reg. 13623 (Mar. 7, 2021).
178
Email from Stephonn Alcorn, Special Assistant to the Domestic Pol’y Council, The White House, to Arthur Plews, Chief of Staff,
U.S. Small Bus. Admin., et al., (Apr. 1, 2021, 10:55 AM) (on file with the Committee).
179
E-mail from Devontae Freeland, Special Assistant, White House Counsel’s Office, to Victor Parker, Deputy Associate Administra-
tor, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Small Bus. Admin, et al., (May 3, 2021, 4:30 PM) (on file with the Committee).
180
E-mail from Devontae Freeland, Special Assistant, White House Counsel’s Office, to Victor Parker, Deputy Associate Adminis-
trator, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Small Bus. Admin, et al., (May 3, 2021, 4:30 PM) (on file with the Committee); Email from
Larry Schwartztol, Associate White House Counsel and Special Assistant to the President, The White House, to Victor Parker, Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Small Bus. Admin, et al., (May 26, 2021, 10:27 PM).
181
E-mail from Devontae Freeland, Special Assistant, White House Counsel’s Office, to Victor Parker, Deputy Associate Administra-
tor, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Small Bus. Admin, et al., (July 1, 2021, 5:16 PM) (on file with the Committee).
182
E-mail from Devontae Freeland, Special Assistant, White House Counsel’s Office, to Victor Parker, Deputy Associate Administra-
tor, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Small Bus. Admin, et al., (July 12, 2021, 5:03 PM) (on file with the Committee).
183
Calendar entry on file with the Committee.
184
E-mail from Devontae Freeland, Special Assistant, White House Counsel’s Office, to Victor Parker, Deputy Associate Administra-
tor, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Small Bus. Admin, et al., (July 2, 2021, 8:16 PM) (on file with the Committee).
185
Press Release, The White House, FACT SHEET: The Biden-Harris Administration is Taking Action to Restore and Strengthen
American Democracy (Dec. 8, 2021).

39
2022

Jan. SBA Acknowledges it is the First Federal Agency to Request Voter Regis-
Jan. 22
2022 tration Agency Status at the State Level.186
Mar. 7 Administrator Guzman Travels to Michigan.187
Mar.
2022 The White House Reiterates SBA Formally Requested designation by
Mar. 24
Michigan as a Voter Registration Agency under the NVRA.188
House Small Business Committee, Minority, Sends Letter to SBA Regard-
ing E.O. 14019.189
Jun.
Jun. 15 House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Minority, Sends Letter to
2022
Office of Personnel Management and the U.S. General Services Adminis-
tration Regarding E.O. 14019.190
Jul. House Committee on the Judiciary, Minority, Sends Letter to White House
Jul. 15
2022 DPC Regarding E.O. 14019.191
Aug. 15 Secretaries of State Write Letter to President Biden Opposing E.O.
Aug. 3
2022 14019.192
Sep.
Sep. 22 Administrator Guzman Travels to Detroit, MI.193
2022
Oct.
Oct. 27 Administrator Guzman Travels to Detroit, MI.194
2022
Nov.
Nov. 8 2022 Midterm Election.
2022
U.S. Office of Special Counsel Releases Advisory Opinion RE: Use of
Dec.
Dec. 14 Trump Campaign Slogans, now that Former President Trump is a 2024
2022
Presidential Candidate.195
2023

Jun. Administrator Guzman Visits Detroit, Michigan with White House Senior
Jun. 9
2023 Advisor Mitch Landrieu.196

186
Press Release, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., One Year Later: Biden-Harris Administration, SBA Have Prioritized an Equitable Recov-
ery, Centered on Strengthening Main Street and Supply Chains (Jan. 21, 2022).
187
Press Release, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., READOUT: SBA Administrator Joined Congresswomen Brenda Lawrence, Rashida Tlaib,
and Haley Stevens in Detroit to Highlight the SBA’s Efforts to Support ‘Made in America’ Initiatives (Mar. 9, 2022).
188
Press Release, The White House, Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Releases Report on Native American Voting Rights (Mar.
24, 2022).
189
Letter from Blaine Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Small Bus., et al., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus.
Admin. (June 15, 2022).
190
Letter from James Comer, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Oversight and Reform, et al., to Kiran Ahuja, Director, U.S. Off. of
Personnel Mgmt. (Jun. 15, 2022); Letter from James Comer, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Oversight and Reform, et al., to Robin
Carnahan, Adm’r, U.S. General Serv’s Admin. (Jun. 15, 2022).
191
Letter from Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, et al., to Susan E. Rice, Director, Domestic Policy Council,
The White House, et al. (Jul. 15, 2022).
192
Letter from John Merrill, Sec’y of State, Alabama, et al., to Joe Biden, President of the United States (Aug. 3, 2022).
193
Calendar entry on file with the Committee.
194
Calendar entry on file with the Committee.
195
U.S. Off. of Special Counsel, Hatch Act Advice for Federal Employees Now that Former President Trump is a Presiden-
tial Candidate (Dec. 14, 2022)
196
Press Release, U.S. Small Bus. Admin, Readout on SBA Administrator Isabella Casillas Guzman’s Visit to Detroit with White
House Senior Advisor Mitch Landrieu (Jun. 12, 2023).

40
2024

Administrator Guzman Visits Detroit, MI with Vice President Harris to
Feb. 22 Kick-Off Investing in America Tour, Meets with Metro Detroit Black Busi-
Feb. ness Alliance.197
2024 Administrator Guzman Visits Grand Rapids, MI with Vice President Har-
Feb. 23 ris to highlight the Biden-Harris Administration’s Black Small Business
Boom.198
Biden-Harris Campaign Announces Trip to Saginaw for Thursday of Fol-
lowing Week.199
Mar. 8
Jennifer Kim, Associate Administrator of the SBA Office of Field Opera-
tions, Proposes Announcing the MOU “Late Next Week.”200
SBA Follows-Up with MDOS Regarding MOU Press Release.201
Mar. 14 Biden-Harris Campaigns in Saginaw, Michigan Announcing Dedication of
Resources to Win Michigan in Upcoming Election.202
Mar. SBA/MDOS MOU Signed.203
2024 Mar. 18 Jennifer Kim States Her Excitement “For the Partnership to be Final-
ized!”204
Mar. 19 SBA Announces MOU with State of Michigan.205
House Small Business Committee Holds Hearing with SBA Administrator
Mar. 20
Guzman.206
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson Announces Michigan’s Elec-
Mar. 22 tions Were Ranked #2 in the Nation by the MIT Election Data and Science
Lab.207

197
Press Release, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., Readout of SBA Administrator Guzman’s Visit to Detroit to Kick off the Investing in Amer-
ica Tour (Feb. 22, 2024).
198
Press Release, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., Readout of SBA Administrator Guzman’s Visit to Grand Rapids with Vice President Harris
(Feb. 23, 2024).
199
Jordyn Hermani, Joe Biden plans Michigan campaign stop in Saginaw, which picks winners, Bridge Michigan (Mar. 8, 2024).
200
E-mail from Jennifer Kim, Associate Adm’r, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Small Bus. Admin, to Meghan Schaar, Associate
Legal Director, Michigan Dep’t of State (Mar. 8, 2024, 12:31 PM) (on file with the Committee).
201
E-mail from Rebecca Galanti, Press Secretary, U.S. Small Bus. Admin, to Jonathan Brater, Director of Elections, Michigan Dep’t of
State, et al., (Mar. 14, 2024, 9:35 AM) (on file with the Committee).
202
See Biden campaigns in Michigan in latest visit to battleground state, The Wash. Post (Mar. 14, 2024).
203
See U.S. Small Bus. Admin., Memorandum of Understanding (Mar. 18, 2024) (on file with Committee).
204
E-mail from Jennifer Kim, Associate Administrator for the Office of Field Operations, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., to Jonathan Brater,
Director of Elections, Michigan Dep’t of State, et al., (Mar. 18, 2024, 1:14 PM) (on file with the Committee).
205
Press Release, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., SBA Administrator Guzman Announces Agency’s First-Ever Voter Registration Agreement
with Michigan Department of State (Mar. 19, 2024).
206
See Conducting Oversight: Testimony from the Small Business Administrator: Hearing Before H. Comm. on Small Bus., 118th Cong.
(Mar. 20, 2024) (statements of Dan Meuser, Member, H. Comm. on Small Bus., Pete Stauber, Member, H. Comm. on Small Bus).
207
Press Release, Michigan Dep’t of State, Secretary Benson announces Michigan’s elections ranked #2 in the nation by MIT Election
Data and Science Lab (Mar. 22, 2024).

41
MDOS Notifies the SBA that the Unique URL for Registering Voters is
Apr. 3
Live.208
Apr. 4 House Small Business Committee Launches Investigation.
Video of Tyler Robinson, Former Special Assistant to the SBA Administra-
Apr. 17
tor, is Released on Twitter.209
Apr. House Small Business Committee Sends Letter to SBA Regarding the Tyler
Apr. 18
2024 Robinson Video.210
Deputy Administrator Syed Speaks at Event in Dearborn, MI.211
Apr. 25 Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT) Requests Investigation into Apparent Hatch
Act Violations by Officials at the White House and the Small Business
Administration.212
Apr. 28 Deputy Administrator Syed Travels to Michigan.213
Tyler Robinson Fails to Appear to House Small Business Committee Tran-
May 2
scribed Interview (TI).
May 3 Arthur Plews Fails to Appear to House Small Business Committee TI.
May 6 Deputy Administrator Syed Travels to Michigan.214
House Small Business Committee Subpoenas Robinson and Plews for
May May 7
Depositions with the Committee.215
2024 House Small Business Committee and Senate Committee on Small Busi-
ness & Entrepreneurship Send Joint Letter to SBA Regarding SBA’s Press
May 16
Releases, Travel Patterns of SBA Officials, and Requests for Additional
Information.
Deputy Administrator Syed Travels to Michigan with Vice President Har-
May 28
ris.216

208
E-mail from Jonathan Brater, Director of Elections, Michigan Dep’t of State, to Jennifer Kim, Associate Administrator for the Of-
fice of Field Operations, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., et al., (Apr. 3, 2024, 2:15 PM).
209
See James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII), Twitter (Apr. 17, 2024, 3:57 PM), https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/sta-
tus/1780687148527579215.
210
Letter from Roger Williams, Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (Apr. 18,
2024).
211
Event, Great Lakes Women’s Bus. Council, SBA’s American Arabic Small Business Celebration (Apr. 25, 2024).
212
Letter from Michael Chamberlain, Director, Protect the Public’s Trust, to Hampton Dellinger, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Hatch
Act Unit, et al. (Apr. 25, 2024).
213
Dilawar Syed (@SBADeputyAdm), Twitter (Apr. 28, 2024, 3:28 PM), https://x.com/sbadeputyadm/sta-
tus/1784666039680188923?s=46.
214
Dilawar Syed (@SBADeputyAdm), Twitter (May 6, 2024, 10:24 AM), https://x.com/SBADeputyAdm/sta-
tus/1787488677129543686.
215
Subpoena from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, to Tyler Robinson, Special Advisor, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (May 7, 2024);
Subpoena from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., to Arthur Plews, Chief of Staff, U.S. Small Bus. Admin.
(May 7, 2024).
216
Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP), Twitter (May 28, 2024, 4:46 PM), https://x.com/vp/sta-
tus/1795557268462711203?s=42&t=tXCH_-NOSEbPyS2XKkr5iA.

42
Jun. 3 House Small Business Committee Conducts TI with Tyler Robinson.
House Small Business Committee Holds First Hearing on SBA Voter Reg-
Jun. 4
istration Efforts.
Jun.
Jun. 11 House Small Business Committee Conducts TI with Arthur Plews.
2024
Jun. 17 Administrator Guzman Travels to Detroit, Michigan.217
Indiana Secretary of State Directs 100+ Agencies to Cease Unauthorized
Jun. 28
Involvement in Voter Registration Activities.218
House Small Business Committee and Senate Committee on Small Busi-
ness & Entrepreneurship Send SBA Joint Letter Regarding the SBA’s
Unresponsiveness.219
Jul. 15
RNC Files Lawsuit Against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs and SBA Voter Registration Activities in
Michigan.220
Jul. President Biden Drops from 2024 Presidential Election.221
2024 Jul. 21
Michigan Gov. Whitmer Becomes Co-Chair of Kamala Harris Presidential
Jul. 22
Campaign.222
Jul. 24 House Small Business Committee Holds Hearing with Jennifer Kim.
House Small Business Committee Issues Subpoena Regarding Outstanding
Jul. 30
Document Requests.223
Aug.
Aug. 14 Attorney Generals from 9 States File Lawsuit Challenging E.O. 14019.224
2024
Sep. House Small Business Committee Holds Hearing with Administrator Guz-
Sep. 18
2024 man.

217
Press Release, U.S. Small Bus. Admin., SBA, WIPP, AMEX to Cohost Government Contracting Education Initiative for Women
Entrepreneurs in Michigan and Colorado (Jun. 14, 2024).
218
See Leslie Bonilla Muniz, Indiana elections chief directs 100+ federal agencies to halt alleged ‘unauthorized involvement’, Indiana
Capital Chronicle (Jul. 3, 2024).
219
Letter from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin.
(Jul. 15, 2024).
220
See Dareh Gregorian and Selina Guevara, Trump campaign sues Michigan Gov. Whitmer over new voter registration sites, NBC
News (July 15, 2024).
221
Peter Nicholas and Dareh Gregorian, President Joe Biden drops out of 2024 presidential race, NBC News (Jul. 21, 2024).
222
Tim Hains, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer: Proud to be Co-Chair of the Kamala Harris Campaign, Real Clear Politics (Jul.
22, 2024).
223
Subpoena from Roger Williams, Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (Jul.
30, 2024).
224
M.D. Kittle, States File Federal Lawsuit To Shut Down ‘Bidenbucks’, The Federalist (Aug. 14, 2024). States include Montana,
Kansas, Iowa, South Dakota, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina. Id.

43
Appendix 3: Verratti on Emails with White House Personnel Regarding a Meeting with Civil Rights
Organizations 225

225
E-mail from Devontae Freeland, Special Assistant, White House Counsel’s Office, the White House to Victor Parker, Deputy Asso-
ciate Administrator, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Small Bus. Admin, et al., (Jul. 2, 2021, 4:15 PM) (on file with the Committee).

44
Appendix 4: DOJ Directive to Shield E.O. 14019 Implementation Plans from the Public 226

Foundation for Government Accountability v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2:22-cv-00252-JLB-KCD (M. D. Fl. May 28, 2022) (Document
226

78-1) (on file with the Committee).

45
Appendix 5: U.S. Railroad Retirement Board E.O. 14019 Strategic Plans Excerpt 227

U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd., STRATEGIC PLAN for the Implementation of Executive Order 14019, Promoting Access
227

to Voting, 4 (Sep. 23, 2021) (on file with the Committee).

46
Appendix 6: Department of Labor Correspondence RE: E.O. 14019 Implementation 228

Email from Holly McKamey Simoni, Workforce Programs Administrator, State of Wyoming, to Kajuana Donahue, Federal Project
228

Officer/State Liaison, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, et al., (Apr. 27, 2022) (on file with the Committee).

File and source

File: 407112_2024-12-11_committee-on-small-business-releases-interim-staff_att0.pdf
Size: 2,999,174 bytes
SHA-256: 3847795e6e6cd59b0e0d67c272c117c2f2cbd90517798797a215a4ec642b405c
Our copy: 407112_2024-12-11_committee-on-small-business-releases-interim-staff_att0.pdf
Original: No public link identified.