A Trump administration official who publicly promised that a new presidency would usher in an era of “retribution” is now facing a formal investigation over allegations that he threatened and physically shoved a colleague inside a State Department elevator.
Gavin Wax, chief of staff to the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, has been accused of confronting Ali Motamedi, a special assistant to the United States special envoy to Greenland, at the department’s Washington headquarters.
The alleged encounter lasted only moments.
Its consequences could extend far beyond the elevator.
According to a written complaint obtained by the Daily Mail, Motamedi said Wax confronted him in early July in a basement elevator inside the Harry S. Truman Building.
Motamedi alleged that Wax placed a hand on his chest, threatened to beat him if he spoke negatively about Wax or his family again and then forcefully pushed him before stepping back into the elevator.
Motamedi wrote that he did not know what alleged comments Wax was referring to.
The State Department’s Office of Special Investigations has reportedly opened a formal inquiry. One source told the newspaper that the matter could eventually be referred to the Justice Department for possible criminal review.
Wax has not been charged with a crime, and the existence of an investigation does not establish that the allegations are true.
But the complaint places a politically connected Trump loyalist at the center of a potentially serious workplace-conduct case—and raises immediate questions about whether his influence could affect how aggressively the department investigates him.
The State Department declined to discuss the specific allegations, saying it does not comment on internal personnel matters.
The potential existence of security footage could become decisive.
One source said cameras are located around the elevators and may have captured the confrontation. Another source disputed the strength of the evidence, saying there was no known video or eyewitness confirmation of physical violence.
Those accounts leave the central allegation unresolved.
If footage exists, investigators may be able to determine whether physical contact occurred and whether the movements described in Motamedi’s complaint are visible. Audio may be a separate matter, and video alone might not establish precisely what was said.
Still, the inquiry concerns more than an ordinary disagreement between colleagues.
A physical threat inside a federal workplace—if substantiated—could result in disciplinary consequences and potentially expose an official to criminal scrutiny. One source familiar with the situation suggested that many employees would face termination over comparable behavior.
Yet concerns have reportedly emerged that the investigation is progressing unusually slowly.
Sources within the investigating office told the Daily Mail that some officials worry Wax possesses political protection because he claims access to President Donald Trump.
Another source challenged that perception, noting that many people claim close relationships with Trump without actually having them.
But Wax’s history makes the question difficult to dismiss.
He spent six years leading the New York Young Republican Club, an organization that became an early and enthusiastic supporter of Trump’s 2024 campaign. At the club’s 2023 gala, Wax delivered a warning about what would happen if Trump returned to power.
The administration, he declared, would stop “playing nice.”
“It will be a time for retribution,” Wax told supporters.
Trump, who attended the event, publicly thanked Wax by name.
That rhetoric now casts a dark shadow over the State Department complaint. A political activist can use aggressive language at a partisan event, but a government official operates under professional rules and possesses institutional authority.
When someone who celebrated retaliation is accused of threatening a colleague, investigators must determine whether the alleged elevator incident was isolated—or reflected a broader approach to power.
This is also not the first signed allegation describing threatening behavior by Wax.
In October 2025, Michael Bartels, then a senior adviser at the Small Business Administration, reportedly signed a notarized affidavit accusing Wax of demanding access to a private Telegram conversation and threatening his professional standing when he refused.
Wax denied being responsible for a leak connected to that dispute and reportedly faced no known consequences.
That earlier allegation did not prove the current complaint. The incidents involve different people, circumstances and forms of alleged conduct.
But together they create a pattern investigators cannot responsibly ignore.
The State Department must now establish what happened, interview the people involved, preserve any available security recordings and determine whether Wax violated workplace or criminal rules.
It must also demonstrate that political connections will not determine the outcome.
The stakes are especially high because public diplomacy officials represent the United States and help shape its message abroad. Allegations of intimidation inside the department could damage morale while reinforcing fears that the administration’s language of revenge has entered the daily operations of government.
Wax deserves a fair investigation, including an opportunity to respond fully to the complaint.
Motamedi deserves the same seriousness.
The case may ultimately reveal a misunderstanding, a heated verbal confrontation or conduct considerably more serious than either. The available reporting does not yet establish which account the evidence will support.
But one fact is already impossible to overlook.
A man who once stood before Trump and promised that an era of retribution was coming is now accused of bringing that attitude into a federal building—and turning an ordinary elevator ride into a threat that could end his government career.
