OMB Official Mark Sandy Testifies on Ukraine Aid Freeze, Reveals Two Colleagues Resigned Over Concerns

Mark Sandy, a career Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official serving as deputy associate director for national security programs, testified to House impeachment investigators on November 16, 2019, revealing that two of his OMB colleagues resigned in protest over concerns that Trump’s freeze of Ukraine military aid violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Sandy’s testimony provided critical insider evidence that career officials within the White House budget office recognized the aid freeze as potentially illegal and that the normal budget process was hijacked by political appointees to execute Trump’s scheme to pressure Ukraine. His account documented how political appointee Michael Duffey took over approval of the aid hold on July 30—just five days after Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—in an unusual substitution that sidelined career budget professionals.

Legal Concerns and Impoundment Control Act Violations

When Sandy learned the aid was withheld on July 19, 2019, after returning from vacation, he immediately raised legal concerns because the $391 million in congressionally appropriated funds had to be obligated by September 30, the end of the fiscal year, under the Impoundment Control Act. The 1970s law prohibits a sitting president from unilaterally withholding funds appropriated by Congress. Sandy told his supervisor Michael Duffey that they would need to discuss with legal counsel how the hold would be affected by the Impoundment Control Act. Because Duffey told him “there was no clear guidance” on the duration of the hold, Sandy was concerned the funds would not be distributed before their period of availability expired, which would violate the Act.

OMB Officials Resign in Protest

Sandy testified that at least two OMB colleagues resigned because of concerns about the hold. One official worked in the OMB’s Legal Division and left “at least in part because of their concerns or frustrations about the hold on Ukraine security assistance.” This official had expressed reservations that the hold violated the Impoundment Control Act. A second OMB official, who resigned in September, “expressed some frustrations about not understanding the reason for the hold.” The resignations demonstrated that career budget professionals recognized the illegality of Trump’s actions and were unwilling to participate in what they viewed as a violation of law.

Political Appointee Takes Over

Sandy was in charge of signing off on the official hold on July 25, 2019—the same day as Trump’s infamous phone call with Zelensky demanding investigations into the Bidens. However, on July 30, political appointee Michael Duffey took over the process in an unusual substitution of a political operative for a career employee as the approver of routine OMB budget decisions. This substitution ensured that career professionals who might object to the illegality of the hold would be removed from the decision-making chain. Sandy further testified that the White House provided no explanation for the freeze until September, when officials first asked OMB for information about what other countries were contributing to Ukraine—the belated fabrication of a justification for the hold.

Significance

Mark Sandy’s testimony provided devastating insider evidence of the Ukraine extortion scheme from within the OMB budget office responsible for executing the aid freeze. His account revealed that career officials recognized the hold as potentially illegal, that at least two resigned rather than participate in the scheme, and that political appointees deliberately sidelined career professionals to execute Trump’s plan without internal resistance. The testimony documented systematic corruption of the budget process to serve Trump’s personal political interests, demonstrating how the administration eliminated career officials who raised legal and ethical objections. Sandy’s willingness to testify despite administration obstruction made him a crucial whistleblower in the impeachment inquiry, providing evidence that Trump’s scheme triggered internal resistance from professional civil servants who recognized the constitutional violation unfolding before them.