The ZenniHome Money — Four Charts
REPORTED · built from the Council's own hearing releases (June 12 & June 19, 2026), OPVP's statements, and the verified §164 statutory route. Every box traces to a primary source.
This page maps what the public record shows about the ARPA housing money — not what anyone concludes about it. Labels keep three kinds of statements visually distinct throughout: official action (a thing a government body did), sworn testimony (what a witness said under oath, as released by the Council), and allegation or question (raised, not proven). No court or prosecutor has ruled anything wrongful.
1 · How a §164(B) contract is supposed to flow
The lawful route — the baseline every later chart is measured against. Each desk certifies one lane; no desk certifies the whole. Money moves only after execution.
appropriates
the money
vendor,
signs first
NBOA audit
(2-day clock)
budget
compliance
fiscal
sign-off
legal
sufficiency
executes
(§222)
Statutory floor (2 N.N.C. §164(B)(2)): Division Director · Controller · Attorney General. BRD and OMB review were added by Executive Order. Find the law →
2 · The paths the money actually took
Per Controller Sean McCabe's sworn testimony, as characterized in the Council's official June 12, 2026 release. This is one branch's account of a witness's statements; the hearing video is the pure source.
Sole-source $24M grant
straight to ZenniHome
cash-flow concerns raised
(McCabe, sworn)
Sole-source to IDS+A; IDS+A would
subcontract ZenniHome
after a dispute
(McCabe, sworn)
$50M contract to IDS+A (prime):
160 modular homes, design-build
ZenniHome — two separate
contracts (Begay, sworn)
for manufacturing & delivery
(Begay, sworn)
The structural point the testimony raises: the direct route to ZenniHome was blocked as too risky, yet roughly $22 million reached the same company one subcontract layer below the prime contract. Whether that route complied with the Nation's procurement law is exactly what the investigations are examining — it is a question, not a finding.
3 · Timeline — the money and the meetings
Dated events only. Green = money/contract; plum = testimony/oversight; clay = collapse/dispute.
The $24M grant (OPVP: never disbursed) and the $50M Work Order Four contract (of which ~$22M flowed to ZenniHome via IDS+A) are different pots. "18 homes built" and "no homes delivered under the contract" describe different verbs — produced vs contractually delivered. This page never merges them, and neither should any summary you read.
4 · The accountability standoff
Why the record has holes: the branch holding the answers declined the branch asking the questions.
- The BFC (Legislative) subpoenaed roughly a dozen witnesses for its investigatory hearings.
- Several subpoenaed officials — including the President — did not appear, following a same-day DOJ memo advising government employees not to attend or testify. That is an official action by DOJ and a documented non-appearance; it is not a finding of wrongdoing by anyone.
- Controller McCabe testified anyway, citing professional duty; IDS+A's Begay also testified.
- Asked whether the Executive Branch could investigate its own actions impartially, McCabe answered under oath that it would not investigate actions it had taken — one witness's sworn opinion, on the record.
5 · Two accountability tracks, running in parallel
The controversy split into a legislative track and a criminal track — different bodies, different powers, different standards of proof. Neither has concluded.
- Legislative track: Legislation 0174-25 (July 2025) empowered the BFC to subpoena and hold hearings under Title II oversight. Hearings ran June 8–19, 2026. The committee's review of contracts, records, and transactions is ongoing.
- Criminal track: A Special Prosecutor (Kyle Nayback) was appointed August 13, 2025 on a "reasonable grounds" application. Scope includes Executive Branch contracting activities and the ARPA housing arrangements. No charges have been proven.
The standard-of-proof line. The legislative track gathers facts and can compel testimony; it does not convict. The criminal track can charge and prosecute; it has not concluded. "Reasonable grounds," a special-prosecutor appointment, and refiled charges are investigation steps — not findings of guilt. Charged ≠ convicted. The full lesson →
Both positions, side by side
The Council frames its investigation as fiduciary responsibility and restoring public trust. The President's office states that no money is missing — the grant was never disbursed and the contract was reviewed and approved in writing by the Nation's DOJ and Controller — and characterizes the "missing $24M" narrative as election-driven. Both positions are official, public, and linked from the record page. The verdict stays with you.
Read the full record page → · The case study, with the lenses → · The President's interview with Cal Nez →
Sources: Council Office of the Speaker releases — July 12, 2025 (Legislation 0174-25), August 13, 2025 (Special Prosecutor), June 12, 2026 (McCabe testimony) and June 19, 2026 (Begay testimony), navajonationcouncil.org; OPVP statements July 31, 2025 and April 29, 2026; 2 N.N.C. §164 and §222 statutory text. "Sworn" = a witness's hearing testimony as characterized in the Council's official release; the hearing video is the pure source. OPVP statements are the Executive's official position. Allegations are committee questions or attorney statements, not findings. This involves active litigation and a criminal investigation.