Congressional Testimony
Congressional Testimony
Here's a look at documents involving congressional testimony and member statements
Featured Stories
Grambling State University VP Scott Testifies Before Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee released the following testimony by Trayvean D. Scott, vice president for intercollegiate athletics at Grambling State University, from a March 26, 2026, hearing entitled "Don't Fumble Their Future: Positioning Student-Athletes for Success in School and Beyond":* * *
"The tail is about to wag the dog."
When legendary Coach Eddie G. Robinson, Sr. spoke those words before Congress on July 31, 1984, he was issuing a warning grounded in foresight and experience. In the wake of the NCAA v. Board of Regents of the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee released the following testimony by Trayvean D. Scott, vice president for intercollegiate athletics at Grambling State University, from a March 26, 2026, hearing entitled "Don't Fumble Their Future: Positioning Student-Athletes for Success in School and Beyond": * * * "The tail is about to wag the dog." When legendary Coach Eddie G. Robinson, Sr. spoke those words before Congress on July 31, 1984, he was issuing a warning grounded in foresight and experience. In the wake of the NCAA v. Board of Regents of theUniversity of Oklahoma decision, which stripped the National Collegiate Athletic Association of control over television rights, Coach Robinson recognized that a new era was emerging. One where exposure, revenue, and influence would no longer be evenly distributed, rather concentrated among institutions with the most resources and visibility. He understood that television was not just a platform, but a power structure that would reshape recruiting, funding, and competitive balance, leaving under-resourced programs at a systemic disadvantage.
At Grambling State University, we do not speak about collegiate athletics in theory. We speak from lived experience. For more than a century, Grambling has stood as a place where opportunity was created in the absence of resources, where excellence was built through discipline, and where young men and women - many from underrepresented and under-resourced communities - found a pathway to education, leadership, and economic mobility through sport.
Ours is a program where history and purpose are inseparable. Coach Robinson did not simply build a winning program; he built a model of access and transformation that changed lives, families, and communities across generations.
Coach Robinson's warning was not about resisting change, but about preserving the purpose of collegiate athletics. He feared that as external financial interests gained influence, the educational mission and developmental focus of the system would be overshadowed. Speaking on behalf of institutions without equal access to these growing revenue streams, he called for intentionality, for safeguards that would ensure equity, and for opportunity to remain central to the model. His words were a challenge to decision-makers to consider not just what college athletics could become, but what it should remain.
That warning has come to pass in today's collegiate athletics landscape. What was once a caution has now become our reality.
From the perspective of an Athletic Director at a low-resource NCAA Division I institution, that forecast has materialized into a series of pressing structural realities that must be addressed with clarity and urgency.
As Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics, I carry the responsibility of leading a program rooted in tradition, opportunity, and transformation. My perspective is shaped not only by my professional experience in collegiate athletics, but also by my time as a former Division I basketball student-athlete at a low-resource institution.
Today, I have the privilege of serving student-athletes ensuring they are supported academically, competitively, and personally in an increasingly complex environment.
We are operating in a system where competitive balance is no longer a shared expectation, but an increasingly distant idea. Institutions with substantial financial backing exist in a different reality than those without. The gap is visible in recruiting, in retention, in facilities, in staffing, and ultimately, in outcomes. Without a unified national framework, disparities have widened to the point where equity is no longer the goal, survival is.
Competitive balance has shifted into something far more complex than wins and losses.
Programs with access to significant financial resources are functioning in a different ecosystem altogether. They are able to invest heavily in athlete compensation opportunities in ways that others simply cannot replicate. For institutions without those resources, the challenge is not just competing on the field, it is competing for relevance, for visibility, and for the ability to retain talent that has already been developed internally. The gap continues to widen and, without structural intervention, it becomes increasingly difficult to close.
Opportunity, which has long been the heartbeat of collegiate athletics, is also being constrained.
Extended eligibility and shifting policies have slowed roster turnover, which directly impacts the number of available scholarships. At underfunded institutions, where each scholarship represents a critical investment, this creates a bottleneck. Talented high school student-athletes are finding fewer entry points, and programs are forced to make difficult decisions about how to allocate limited resources. Recruiting becomes less about potential and more about immediate need. As administrators, we are forced into difficult decisions that ripple into high school relationships, recruiting pipelines, and the long-term sustainability of our programs. The consequence is not abstract. It is fewer scholarships. Fewer roster spots. Fewer chances for the next generation of student-athletes waiting for their opportunity.
At the same time, the rapid expansion of Name, Image, and Likeness activity has introduced a new layer of vulnerability. Without consistent national regulation, and states racing each other to enact legislation to create recruiting advantages for their flagship institutions, the NIL space has become difficult to monitor and even more difficult to guide. Student-athletes at under-resourced institutions often do not have access to the same level of legal counsel, education, or representation as those at larger programs. This creates an imbalance not only in earning potential, but in protection. Individuals with limited to zero qualifications are entering the space to take advantage of the confusion and chaos, and student-athletes are left to navigate agreements that carry real financial and legal consequences. Athletic departments are expected to support them, yet lack the authority to fully regulate the environment.
Overlaying all of this is a system of governance that is no longer stable. Policies are not just evolving, they are shifting in real time, often shaped by court decisions across multiple jurisdictions. Rules surrounding eligibility, transfers, and compensation have changed midseason. Coaches recruit under one set of expectations and compete under another.
Administrators build budgets and compliance systems without clarity on what tomorrow's rules may be. The rule today may not be the rule tomorrow. A system without consistency cannot produce fairness.
And in the midst of this instability, we must ask a deeper question. What happens to the academic mission?
Collegiate athletics at its core has always been, and must remain, an educational model. For countless student-athletes, sport is the pathway to a degree, to upward mobility, to life beyond the game. But when the system becomes dominated by compensation structures, legal disputes, and external pressures, education risks becoming secondary. That is not a shift we can afford to ignore. It is a line we cannot afford to cross.
What becomes clear is this. Structure is no longer optional, it is necessary.
Organizations like the National Collegiate Athletic Association were designed to provide that structure. But without enforceable authority, governance becomes symbolic. Rules without enforcement are not rules, they are suggestions. And a system built on suggestions cannot sustain competitive balance or institutional accountability.
It is within this context that the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act, the SCORE Act, enters the conversation, not as a final solution, but as a critical step toward restoring order.
The SCORE Act offers something that has been missing, consistency. By establishing a national framework for NIL, and preempting the current patchwork of state laws, it provides clarity where confusion has reigned. It recognizes the modern reality that student-athletes should benefit from their name, image, and likeness, while also creating a more transparent and structured marketplace.
As the SCORE Act establishes a national framework for Name, Image, and Likeness activity, institutions will be required to carefully evaluate how resources, support services, and institutional involvement are distributed. Although NIL compensation is largely driven by market demand and individual visibility, universities cannot ignore their responsibility to maintain gender equity in the support structures surrounding those opportunities. This creates a nuanced challenge, as institutions must navigate a space where free-market dynamics intersect with federal compliance obligations.
The SCORE Act presents an opportunity to strengthen the principles of Title IX if approached with intention. Requirements that emphasize student-athlete support, including access to counseling, medical care, and the preservation of a broad range of varsity sports, can help protect opportunities for women's athletics and non-revenue programs. A consistent national policy may also allow institutions to build more equitable NIL education and development systems.
However, concerns remain. If NIL earnings continue to be concentrated in high-profile men's sports, institutions may face increased pressure to demonstrate that their overall athletic programs still meet Title IX standards. Moving forward, the challenge will be ensuring that the growth of NIL and athlete compensation does not unintentionally widen gender disparities, but instead evolves in a way that aligns with the longstanding commitment to equity in collegiate athletics.
The SCORE Act attempts to bring structure back to a system that has been operating without it.
But structure alone is not enough.
If competitive imbalance is not addressed, the divide between institutions will continue to widen, even under a national NIL framework. If eligibility and roster limitations are not recalibrated, access to opportunity will continue to decline. If stronger protections are not implemented, exploitation will simply adapt to new rules. And if governance authority remains vulnerable to ongoing legal disruption, instability will persist, regardless of policy.
The SCORE Act creates a foundation. What we build on it will determine the future of collegiate athletics.
Because this moment is not about resisting change. Change is already here.
The question is whether we will shape it with intention, grounded in equity, guided by structure, and anchored in education, or whether we will continue to react to it as it reshapes the system around us.
At an institution like Grambling State University, where athletics serves as a gateway to education and upward mobility, the policies we discuss today have immediate and lasting consequences.
Collegiate athletics is a uniquely American institution, full of opportunity, and it must be allowed to continue as such. I would not be sitting in this room today without collegiate sports opening the door for me, and I want that door to remain open for young men and women to follow.
The warning from Coach Robinson was never about control. It was about consequence.
And now, the responsibility to respond belongs to us.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/3be1d0a3-92b4-7bcf-144b-cdc454727863/Scott%20Testimony.pdf
Georgetown University Law Center Professor Vladeck Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution released the following testimony by Stephen I. Vladeck, Agnes Williams sesquicentennial professor of federal courts at Georgetown University Law Center, from a March 25, 2026, hearing entitled "Protecting American Citizenship II: Federalism, Sanctuary Cities, and the Rule of Law":* * *
Chairman Schmitt, Ranking Member Welch, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the invitation to testify before the Subcommittee today.
I've always been a fan of Justice Kennedy's explanation, in a 1995 concurrence, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution released the following testimony by Stephen I. Vladeck, Agnes Williams sesquicentennial professor of federal courts at Georgetown University Law Center, from a March 25, 2026, hearing entitled "Protecting American Citizenship II: Federalism, Sanctuary Cities, and the Rule of Law": * * * Chairman Schmitt, Ranking Member Welch, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the invitation to testify before the Subcommittee today. I've always been a fan of Justice Kennedy's explanation, in a 1995 concurrence,that "[t]he Framers split the atom of sovereignty. It was the genius of their idea that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other."/1
Indeed, the entire conceit of federalism was that by dividing power not just horizontally among the branches of government, but vertically between the federal government and the states, all of our liberty would be best protected against tyranny and governmental lawlessness. One needn't look very far these days to see that aspiration regularly being vindicated.
Although I couldn't deign to do justice in my testimony to the rich series of constitutional doctrines the Supreme Court has articulated to reflect this understanding, they yield three specific takeaways on which I'd like to focus today--each of which provide meaningful insight into what the federal government can (and can't) do when it comes to incentivizing and coercing activity by local and state governments.
First, of course, is the existence and recent reaffirmation of the so-called "anti-commandeering" doctrine. As Justice Alito put it for the Court in 2018, "[t]he anti-commandeering doctrine may sound arcane, but it is simply the expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, i.e., the decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States."/2
As different decisions from the Supreme Court have repeatedly made clear over the last 35 years, that means that not even Congress can tell a state legislature what its policy choices must be,/3 or dictate to a state executive branch which federal laws it must (and must not) enforce.
Congress is free, of course, to use its enumerated powers to adopt federal policy choices--choices that, if valid, would preempt conflicting state laws.
* * *
1. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 838 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
2. Murphy v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 584 U.S. 453, 470 (2018).
3. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).
* * *
But as Justice Scalia emphasized for the Court in 1997, The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy-making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty./4
And even though the emergence of the anti-commandeering doctrine in the 1990s was largely the work of the Court's conservatives, I've always found it compelling--especially Justice Scalia's explanation in Printz for how, were it otherwise, Congress could usurp the President's discretion over federal law enforcement by compelling states to do what the President won't./5
I would've thought that this principle would be especially persuasive to those whose views of executive power under Article II are even broader than mine--including some of the other witnesses this afternoon and members of this Subcommittee. Alas.
Second, the notion that the federal government cannot coerce the states on questions of federal policy is also reflected in the Supreme Court's Spending Clause jurisprudence--and the limits the Court has long placed on the permissible conditions that Congress may impose even on money it was under no obligation to provide to local and state governments. To put the matter plainly, it is not true, and never has been true, that Congress's greater power to not spend the money in the first place somehow implies a "lesser" power to impose whatever conditions it wants on that spending.
Instead, as Chief Justice Rehnquist articulated for the Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Dole, there are four general requirements for spending conditions: they must be (a) clearly expressed in law; (b) related to the money; (c) not "coercive"; and (d) not in violation of any other constitutional provision./6
And as this Subcommittee is well aware, the Supreme Court has given the "not coercive" prong of this test teeth as recently as 2012, when a majority of the Court struck down the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion./7
* * *
4. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997).
5. Id. at 923 ("The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive--to ensure both vigor and accountability--is well known. That unity would be shattered, and the power of the President would be subject to reduction, if Congress could act as effectively without the President as with him, by simply requiring state officers to execute its laws." (citations omitted)).
* * *
As should hopefully be obvious, the constitutional bar on coercive spending conditions is inextricably intertwined with the constitutional bar on commandeering: The reason why a spending condition that isn't truly voluntary is not permitted is because, at that point, the federal government is effectively dictating state policy--rather than giving the state a financial incentive to choose a specific policy. The line between choice and coercion isn't always obvious. But it is undeniably one of constitutional significance--because it's the line that identifies the actor that adopted the underlying policy being carried out by state officers, that is, whether it was the state or the federal government./8
To similar effect, what all of these cases have long made clear is that even legitimate conditions must be both reasonably related to the purposes of the money that is being spent and clearly expressed in law. That's because one of the core purposes of these rules is, as Justice Alito put it in Murphy, to "promote[] political accountability."/9
One of the consequences of that understanding is that even valid conditions must come from the express language of statutes, not the whims of an executive order.
Obviously, this long-settled principle calls into question much of what the Trump administration has done to date with regard to the withholding of federal funds--virtually none of which has been based on any clear statutory conditions. Indeed, I would have thought that, given its mandate, this Subcommittee would be especially interested in the latent unconstitutionality of the spending conditions that this administration has regularly sought to impose only through executive order--both in their own right and as a usurpation of Congress's constitutional prerogative. Alas.
* * *
6. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206-12 (1987).
7. Nat'l Fed. of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).
8. See id. at 577-78 ("Congress may use its spending power to create incentives for States to act in accordance with federal policies. But when 'pressure turns into compulsion,' the legislation runs contrary to our system of federalism." (quoting Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 590 (1937)).
9. 584 U.S. at 473.
* * *
Third, and lest these principles (or my testimony) be taken out of context, neither the anti-commandeering doctrine nor the limits on spending conditions allow states to thwart or obstruct federal law enforcement--and I am not aware of any state or local government that has argued (or actually acted) otherwise.
But there is a constitutionally critical (and dispositive) distinction between active obstruction and passive noncooperation--one that courts have regularly enforced in the immigration context, including in a slew of cases during the first Trump administration. I understand that there are political points to be scored in trying to collapse that distinction--and in trying to portray certain local and state policies, which at their core reflect a refusal to cooperate, as affirmative interference with federal law enforcement.
But if the goal of today's hearing is to unpack what the Constitution has to say about this distinction, the reality is that the law on this front is particularly clear. It is clear not only that a refusal to cooperate with federal law enforcement is not impermissible obstruction, but that the motives for not cooperating with federal law enforcement are, for constitutional purposes, entirely irrelevant. Ultimately, the animating principle and promise of federalism is that states are allowed to have their own reasons for making their own choices.
* * *
As recent events and today's hearing (perhaps unintentionally) underscore, immigration enforcement may be the perfect lens through which to understand why the Constitution limits the federal government's power to coerce local and state law enforcement. This topic is, quite obviously, a matter on which there are deep political (and, increasingly, partisan) disagreements--many of which have significant local and/or regional variations. Some localities might choose to cooperate with federal immigration efforts; and others might see such cooperation as impeding the community relationships necessary to identify and solve crimes, and/or as otherwise threatening the liberty not just of those who are being targeted by these efforts, but of those who aren't (or, at least, shouldn't have been).
Ultimately, the choice as to how to devote law enforcement resources--including whether or not to use such resources to aid in federal immigration efforts--is one that has not just traditionally been left to state and local authorities; it's one that the Constitution commits to those authorities. Members of this Subcommittee may have vehement disagreements with the different choices that different local and state governments have made in this space; I have some disagreements with some of those choices, myself.
But those disagreements have remedies at the local and state ballot boxes--not in a congressional hearing room. Nor is any of this a new idea.
Rather, it's one of the oldest, for as Justice Scalia put it in Printz, "The Framers' experience under the Articles of Confederation had persuaded them that using the States as the instruments of federal governance was both ineffectual and provocative of federal-state conflict."/10
So too, here.
Thank you again for the invitation to testify today. I look forward to your questions.
* * *
10. 521 U.S. at 919.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/150abe42-c7cd-d0d2-6ea3-cd1bfc1e0813/2026-03-25-PM_Testimony_Vladeck.pdf
United College Athletes Association Organizing Director Pivec Testifies Before Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee released the following written testimony by Mikayla Pivec, organizing director and co-founder of the United College Athletes Association, Beaverton, Oregon, from a March 26, 2026, hearing entitled "Don't Fumble Their Future: Positioning Student-Athletes for Success in School and Beyond":* * *
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee.
My name is Mikayla Pivec. I'm a professional basketball player, and former All-American at Oregon State University, where I was the captain who led our ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee released the following written testimony by Mikayla Pivec, organizing director and co-founder of the United College Athletes Association, Beaverton, Oregon, from a March 26, 2026, hearing entitled "Don't Fumble Their Future: Positioning Student-Athletes for Success in School and Beyond": * * * Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Mikayla Pivec. I'm a professional basketball player, and former All-American at Oregon State University, where I was the captain who led ourteam to an Elite Eight and two Sweet Sixteens before being drafted into the WNBA. I'm now the co-founder and organizing director of the United College Athletes Association (UCAA): a players association that gives college athletes a real voice to secure a system that is safe, fair, and sustainable for generations.
I grew up in Washington and fell in love with basketball in 3rd grade after my Dad took me to a Seattle Storm game. Players like Sue Bird, Lauren Jackson, and Candace Parker inspired me to chase my dreams, so every night, I made my dad rebound for me for hours. By the time it got dark, he'd want to sleep and I'd always say: "just one more, Dad. Just one more." And we'd countdown like I was hitting a buzzer beater in March Madness.
My work ethic took me to the next level. I led my team to the Elite Eight in front of millions on ESPN. I even competed against Sue Bird and Team USA. I was no longer on the playground with orange slices from mom and participation trophies for everyone. I sacrificed everything to compete at this level because I love our game. But that's not why I'm here today. I'm here today because the NCAA has failed and continues to fail to respect and protect college athletes.
When I was in college, I was working over 50 hours a week on my sport while earning less than $8 an hour from a $1,600 monthly stipend./1
I DoorDashed and collected cans to pay bills.
Basketball was more than a full-time job and the university had complete control of my schedule.
NIL has helped some players, but most still earn less than $10/hour and struggle to pay for basic necessities. The lack of protections goes way beyond money.
My senior year, I had a foot injury that needed surgery. Every step felt like I was walking on a nail. I kept requesting an MRI, but they denied me every, single, time. I kept playing because I love the game, but in retrospect, I was denied the information I needed to make a decision about my own health. Right after graduating, I also needed a knee surgery and had to pay for it out of pocket. I had a professional injury, but received amateur medical care from the NCAA.
My story is not unique. I've had conversations with thousands of athletes across the country and constantly hear the same stories of players pushed to play through serious injuries, broken bones, and even concussions. That's business as usual for the NCAA.
This hearing is titled "Don't Fumble Their Futures" -- but the truth is, the NCAA has fumbled athletes' futures for generations. My grandmother was forced to play half-court basketball because institutions like the NCAA believed women were too weak for full-court. When Title IX passed, the NCAA sued to block it./2
It hasn't even been four years since the NCAA finally allowed women's basketball to use the term "March Madness" after being shamed by the weight room scandal./3
Now, only 7% of colleges are in compliance with Title IX and the NCAA is spending millions to lobby for the SCORE Act, which would strip athletes of labor rights, silence their voices, and give the NCAA a bailout./4
The NCAA has repeatedly fumbled our futures -- so why would Congress even remotely consider entrusting the NCAA with a bailout?
The NCAA has professionalized every part of our game, except the rights and protections of the athletes who are at the center of its growth. The NCAA's business is professional, but its structure is amateur, which is why it needs to follow the lead of every professional sports league by negotiating a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with a players association./5
A CBA is the best way to make college sports safe, fair, and sustainable for both athletes and universities because they can negotiate a solution that is fair for both sides. Athletes get enforceable protections like safety mandates, academic freedoms, and fair pay; while universities get enforceable rules like salary caps, transfer limits, and tampering restrictions. That's why athletic directors at Tennessee, Ohio State, TCU, San Diego St., and Boise St. support a CBA./6
Finally, Congress should NOT pass the SCORE Act or any legislation that limits athletes' labor rights. Instead, I support the College Athlete Right to Organize Act (CARO) introduced by Senator Sanders, Senator Murphy, and Senator Warren. I also commend the bipartisan leadership of Senator Cantwell and Senator Schmitt through their College Sports Competitiveness Act, which protects women's and Olympic sports.
I want every little girl in the stands watching college athletes to know that when it's her turn, she'll step into a system that protects her as a person, educates her as a student, and empowers her as a professional. That's what current and future generations deserve. Anything less would let them down and empower the NCAA to keep fumbling their futures.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Footnotes:
1. Pac-12 Conference: Student-Athlete Time Demands, Penn Schoen Berland (2015)
2. Women's Sports Foundation: History of Title IX (2019)
3. The 19th News: Women's basketball is finally getting equal treatment in NCAA Final Four branding (2022)
4. Sportico: College Title IX Gender Equity Compliance Is a Failure, Feds Say (2024)
5. Supreme Court: NCAA v. Alston (2021)
6. The Dallas Morning News: TCU Athletics Director Sees Need for College Athletes at Negotiating Table (2026)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/3be1d0a3-92b4-7bcf-144b-cdc454727863/Pivec%20Testimony.pdf
National College Players Association Players Council Member Anderson Testifies Before Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee released the following testimony by Liam Anderson, member of the National College Players Association Players Council, from a March 26, 2026, hearing entitled "Don't Fumble Their Future: Positioning Student-Athletes for Success in School and Beyond":* * *
Dear Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, and members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee,
Thank you for inviting me to participate in the "Don't Fumble Their Future: Positioning Student-Athletes for Success in School and Beyond" ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee released the following testimony by Liam Anderson, member of the National College Players Association Players Council, from a March 26, 2026, hearing entitled "Don't Fumble Their Future: Positioning Student-Athletes for Success in School and Beyond": * * * Dear Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, and members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Thank you for inviting me to participate in the "Don't Fumble Their Future: Positioning Student-Athletes for Success in School and Beyond"hearing on March 26, 2026. I am grateful for this opportunity to provide my perspective on the issues facing the great and uniquely American institution of college athletics.
My name is Liam Anderson and I am testifying today as a member of the National College Players Association's Players Council, which advocates to protect future, current, and former college athletes. I am also here as a former college athlete--I competed on Stanford University's track and cross country teams from 2019 until 2024--and as a former academic, who authored my honors and master's theses on many of the economic, legal, and regulatory challenges in college athletics that are at issue in this hearing.
These challenges can be distilled into two questions: First, how do we protect the economic and legal rights of the small subset of college athletes who generate tremendous revenues, while also preserving this invaluable formative experience for those playing Olympic or non-revenue sports, like I did? And second, in answering that question, should the federal government regulate college athletics any differently than it regulates every other industry in this country?
With some very limited caveats, I believe that the answer to the latter is a resounding no. The issues that have brought us here today are readily solved by accepting the obvious eventuality: that certain college athletes are employees.
Federal labor law provides a tried and true framework to resolve these issues through collective bargaining, and there can be little question that athletes in the heavily professionalized upper echelon of the NCAA meet the relevant criteria for employee status--namely FBS football players and Division I men's and women's basketball players, such as those playing in March Madness today. Congress need not reinvent the wheel by conjuring up a unique sub-employee classification as some have contemplated, nor should it altogether bar college athletes from obtaining employee status, as the SCORE Act proposes. Doing so would deprive college athletes of the equal protections enjoyed by any other American.
The NCAA and its members make a litany of complaints about the regulatory schema that exists today in the post-House Settlement world: they claim that the transfer portal has destroyed roster stability; that collectives have upended competitive parity by circumventing the revenue sharing cap; that the courts have enjoined eligibility rules, enabling some athletes to compete for as many as nine years and allowing others to enter the NCAA even after playing professionally; and that the patchwork of state laws makes NIL rules unfair.
Many of these complaints are well founded. But the NCAA's solution--begging Congress to exempt it from federal labor and antitrust law--must be a nonstarter, if for no other reason than the issue of equal protection.
The NCAA's real solution lies in the non-statutory labor exemption. Once Division I basketball and FBS football players are recognized as employees and subsequently choose to form unions--which history suggests they would likely do once so recognized--the NCAA and its members can negotiate collective bargaining agreements with those unions on the mandatory subjects of bargaining, including compensation, benefits, scheduling, grievance procedures, termination, and safety practices. It is its inability to make and enforce consistent rules in these subject areas that precludes the NCAA from governing effectively. With a collective bargaining agreement, the NCAA and its members can secure what they need most, including mutually agreeable and enforceable transfer limitations, salary or revenue share caps, NIL rules, and eligibility standards--all exempt from antitrust scrutiny.
Industry leaders could decide tomorrow to recognize a subset of college athletes as employees; there is no statutory obstacle to their doing so. But we need support from Congress to affirmatively identify that some athletes are employees throughout the country.
This is a real concern that Congress should help address. But many of the other purported reasons not to pursue collective bargaining as a solution are baseless.
Consider the NCAA's tired argument that employment status is incompatible with the academic mission of college athletics. This is an obvious farce; countless college students are employed by their schools in a variety of capacities, including by their athletic departments. Indeed, many of these student workers are unionized. The NCAA has also asserted that athletes' interests are sufficiently represented by internal groups such as its Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. This too is a facade. I have been in those rooms and can state unequivocally that they are as ineffectual as any other company union, wholly captured by the organization they are intended to counterbalance and structurally conditioned to adhere to the NCAA party line. Such arguments, and the NCAA's myriad other objections to collective bargaining, are merely pretextual.
I'll finish with this: every college athlete deserves a pathway to join an independent advocacy organization such as the NCPA, and is worthy of having health and safety protections enshrined into law. I will never forget sitting in on meetings with Senate staff and listening to the parents of Calvin Dickey Jr. tell the story of their son, who died after collapsing during his first day of college football at Bucknell. That is the gravity of what is at stake here.
Any legislation Congress passes must include sufficient health and safety protections, enforced by an independent third party, and it must ensure college athletes receive the equal rights afforded to Americans in every other industry in this country: including the protections guaranteed by federal labor and antitrust law.
The NCPA looks forward to continuing to work with the Committee to address these critical issues and I welcome your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/3be1d0a3-92b4-7bcf-144b-cdc454727863/Anderson%20Testimony.pdf
Louisiana State University Board of Supervisors Member Temple Testifies Before Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee released the following testimony by Collis Temple Jr., member of the Louisiana State University Board of Supervisors and a small-business owner, from a March 26, 2026, hearing entitled "Don't Fumble Their Future: Positioning Student-Athletes for Success in School and Beyond":* * *
Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, and honorable Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you on the ongoing effort to best position collegiate student-athletes for success in the classroom and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee released the following testimony by Collis Temple Jr., member of the Louisiana State University Board of Supervisors and a small-business owner, from a March 26, 2026, hearing entitled "Don't Fumble Their Future: Positioning Student-Athletes for Success in School and Beyond": * * * Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, and honorable Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you on the ongoing effort to best position collegiate student-athletes for success in the classroom andbeyond.
My name is Collis Temple, Jr. I am a small-business owner and currently serve as a member of the Louisiana State University Board of Supervisors. I am also a former student-athlete at LSU, where I had the honor of being part of the men's basketball program. My experience as both a student-athlete and now as a businessman and leader within higher education has given me a unique perspective on the evolving landscape of collegiate athletics.
I am here today to emphasize the importance of preserving the fundamental principles of college athletics while adapting thoughtfully to the modern challenges facing student-athletes.
Core Principle: Student First
I want to begin by grounding my remarks in what I believe is the most important principle guiding this conversation: the preservation of the student-athlete model. College athletics, at its core, is an extension of the educational mission of our institutions. First and foremost, student-athletes are students pursuing degrees, developing life skills, and preparing for futures that extend far beyond their time in sports. Athletics should enhance that educational experience, not replace it with a professional employment framework that fundamentally alters the role of higher education.
Maintaining that balance is essential not only to the integrity of college athletics, but, more importantly, to the long-term success of the young people participating in it. Academic engagement must remain central.
Student-athletes should be expected to attend class, remain accountable for their coursework, and make meaningful progress toward degree completion. Universities have a responsibility to ensure that athletic participation complements the education of the student, rather than replacing it altogether.
At the same time, I understand that participation in college athletics carries with it an expectation of commitment. Student-athletes benefit from environments that emphasize discipline, teamwork, and accountability. They should honor the commitments they have made to their teams and coaches and compete to the best of their ability, unless limited by legitimate health concerns. Decisions about participation should be grounded in the long-term well-being of the student-athlete, not short-term financial considerations. Stability within programs benefits both institutions and the student-athletes themselves.
Collegiate athletics should continue to foster team commitment, discipline, and responsibility.
Equally important is the need to support the whole student-athlete, particularly in the area of behavioral health. Today's student-athletes face pressures unlike any previous generation. They are navigating the complexities of name, image, and likeness opportunities, increased public visibility, constant scrutiny through social media, and unrelenting performance expectations, all while managing the demands of academic and athletic performance. Many are also coping with injuries, the uncertainty of their athletic futures, and the reality that the vast majority will not continue into professional sports.
These pressures can have serious consequences, including increased risks of depression, substance abuse, and other behavioral health challenges, including increased risk of suicide. From my experience, it is clear that institutions must expand and strengthen behavioral health resources to ensure that student-athletes are supported as whole individuals, not simply as performers on the field or court. Providing access to counseling, mental health services, and proactive support systems is not optional--it is essential.
In addition, we must do more to prepare student-athletes for life after sports. The vast majority will transition into careers outside of athletics, and they should leave their institutions equipped with the tools necessary to succeed. This includes not only academic preparation, but also financial literacy, career readiness, and leadership development. The evolving landscape of college athletics, particularly with the introduction of NIL opportunities, makes this preparation even more critical. Student-athletes must understand contracts, tax obligations, and long-term financial planning to ensure they can make informed decisions that benefit them well beyond their college years.
Guardrails Needed to Stabilize College Athletics
As college athletics continues to evolve, it is also clear that reasonable guardrails are needed to maintain stability. The current environment, particularly around the transfer portal, has created significant challenges for both athletes and programs. While student-athletes should retain the ability to transfer, establishing clear windows and reasonable structure can help reduce constant roster turnover and preserve a sense of continuity and commitment within teams.
Similarly, as NIL opportunities expand, there is a growing need for greater oversight and education around agent representation. Young student-athletes should be protected from exploitation through appropriate standards, certification requirements, and guidance. Institutions have a role to play in ensuring that athletes are supported with the knowledge and resources necessary to navigate these new opportunities responsibly.
Policy Considerations
Finally, I would note that the current landscape of college athletics is increasingly fragmented, with varying rules and legal interpretations across states and conferences. There is value in considering whether a thoughtful framework could provide greater consistency, establish clear expectations, and reduce uncertainty for institutions and student-athletes alike.
As part of that discussion, we must be careful in considering proposals to redefine student-athletes as employees. While well-intentioned, traditional labor models were designed for professional work environments and may not align with the educational mission of our colleges and universities. The goal should be to strengthen protections and support for student-athletes while preserving their status as students.
At its best, college athletics offers young people an extraordinary opportunity to grow--not only as athletes, but as students, leaders, and individuals prepared for life beyond sports. The challenge before us is to ensure that, as the system evolves, we protect and enhance that opportunity rather than fundamentally change its purpose.
I appreciate the Committee's attention to these issues and your commitment to supporting student-athletes across the country. If there is an opportunity to contribute further to efforts that preserve the student-athlete model while strengthening behavioral health and life-preparation supports, I stand ready to assist.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/3be1d0a3-92b4-7bcf-144b-cdc454727863/Temple%20Jr%20Testimony.pdf
Ex-FBI Special Agent O'Leary Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 10 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights released the following written testimony by former New York FBI special agent Christopher J. O'Leary from a March 24, 2026, hearing entitled "Arctic Frost: A Modern Watergate":* * *
Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony. I provide these remarks in my personal capacity as a non-partisan former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agent with more than two decades of service ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 10 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights released the following written testimony by former New York FBI special agent Christopher J. O'Leary from a March 24, 2026, hearing entitled "Arctic Frost: A Modern Watergate": * * * Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony. I provide these remarks in my personal capacity as a non-partisan former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agent with more than two decades of serviceto the United States. Prior to my career in the FBI, I served as a United States Marine.
My professional life has been defined by a sustained commitment to the service of the nation, pursuit of justice, adherence to the rule of law, and protection of the Constitution.
The purpose of this submission is to offer the Committee an informed, experience-based perspective on FBI investigative practices, institutional culture, and the safeguards that govern investigative decision-making. I do not appear in support of any political party or policy position. Rather, I seek to provide factual context grounded in my professional experience.
Scope of Testimony
I did not personally participate in, supervise, or have direct knowledge of the investigation referred to as "Arctic Frost." Accordingly, I do not offer any direct knowledge of the specific facts, findings, or determinations associated with that matter.
My informed testimony will be focused on describing the general principles, standards, and practices that governed FBI operations during my tenure. These observations are based on firsthand experience across multiple assignments, including field investigations, joint terrorism task force operations, and leadership roles within the Bureau.
Predication and the Opening of Investigations
A central question raised in connection with this hearing is whether FBI investigations may be influenced by political bias or initiated for partisan purposes.
Based on my experience, I did not observe, nor was I aware of, any investigation that was initiated on the basis of political affiliation or ideology.
FBI investigations are predicated on facts. The Bureau operates under established guidelines that require a factual basis--derived from intelligence, evidence, or credible reporting--indicating a potential violation of federal law or a threat to national security. Political beliefs, associations, or viewpoints do not constitute predication and, in my experience, were not treated as such.
Agents are trained to articulate and document the factual basis supporting investigative actions. This requirement ensures that decisions to open, expand, or close investigations are grounded in objective criteria and are capable of withstanding internal and external review.
Oversight, Review, and Safeguards
The FBI operates within a framework of layered oversight designed to ensure compliance with the law and to prevent misuse of investigative authority.
Investigative decisions are subject to supervisory review, legal oversight, and adherence to Department of Justice guidelines.
In practice, this includes:
* Supervisory Oversight: Investigative steps are reviewed and approved by supervisory personnel responsible for ensuring proper predication and proportionality.
* Legal Review: FBI attorneys and Department of Justice officials provide guidance and review, particularly in complex or sensitive matters.
* Documentation Requirements: Agents must maintain detailed records supporting investigative actions, enabling transparency and accountability.
* Judicial Authorization: Certain investigative techniques require court approval, adding an additional external safeguard.
In matters involving public officials or issues of heightened sensitivity, additional layers of scrutiny are typically applied to ensure that investigative actions are appropriate and consistent with established policies.
Institutional Culture and Professional Norms
Beyond formal policies, the internal culture of the FBI plays a critical role in shaping investigative conduct. The Bureau in which I served maintained a clear expectation that investigations be conducted free from political influence or personal bias.
As such, political discussions were absent from FBI work space and professional environments. In my experience, agents and analysts did not engage in conversations about political preferences in the workplace, nor were such considerations relevant to investigative decision-making. I was not aware of the political leanings of my colleagues, and such knowledge was neither sought nor considered necessary.
This cultural norm reinforced the principle that investigative decisions must be based solely on facts, law, and professional judgment. The integrity of the Bureau depended on that separation, and it was consistently upheld through leadership and peer accountability.
Leadership Responsibility and Accountability
As both an investigator and a leader, I understood the obligation to ensure that all investigative activities adhered to legal standards and institutional expectations. I did not engage in, observe, or condone conduct that would introduce political bias or improper influence into investigative work.
Had such conduct been identified, it would have required immediate corrective action. Leadership within the FBI carries with it a responsibility not only for operational outcomes but also for maintaining the integrity of the investigative process.
FBI - Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity
The men and women of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have long stood as a quiet bulwark between order and chaos, guided not by politics or public acclaim, but by an enduring commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law. Their character is forged in an environment where integrity is not aspirational--it is required.
Every day, often without recognition, they make decisions that demand moral clarity, professional restraint, and personal courage. These are not abstract virtues within the Bureau; they are lived expectations, reinforced through training, culture, and example.
Integrity within the FBI is not situational. It is the foundation upon which every investigation rests. Agents are entrusted with immense authority, and with that authority comes an unwavering obligation to act with honesty, objectivity, and fairness. The credibility of the Bureau--and indeed the justice system itself--depends on this principle. FBI professionals understand that their work must withstand scrutiny not only in the moment, but years later, in courtrooms, oversight hearings, and the court of public opinion.
Dedication to duty is equally defining. The work is often difficult, dangerous, and deeply personal. Agents and analysts routinely place themselves in harm's way, whether confronting violent criminals, disrupting terrorist plots, or countering hostile intelligence services. The hours are long, the burdens heavy, and the sacrifices real--borne not only by those who serve, but by their families. Yet there is a shared understanding that the mission transcends the individual. Service to the nation is not a slogan within the FBI; it is a calling.
This ethos is rooted in a tradition of excellence that spans generations. The legacy of the "G-man" is not merely a cultural artifact, but a standard--one that reflects professionalism, discipline, and an unyielding pursuit of truth. While the tools and threats have evolved--from bank robbers and organized crime to cyber adversaries and transnational terrorism--the core values have remained constant. Each new generation inherits not only the responsibilities of the role, but the weight of that legacy.
Few embody these ideals more fully than Robert Mueller. His life of service--first as a Marine officer, leading his Marines in combat in Vietnam, where he demonstrated his courage and selflessness, receiving a Bronze Star for his Valorous conduct, The Vietnam Cross of Gallantry, and a Purple Heart after being combat wounded during a firefight. After returning from Vietnam Bob Mueller could have ended his service to the nation, having already done more than most of his fellow citizens, but his commitment to service would not allow that. Rather he continued his lifelong service to the nation as federal prosecutor, a leader at the Department of Justice, and ultimately as Director of the FBI. Mueller led during one of the most consequential periods in the Bureau's history, assuming command just one week before the attacks of September 11, 2001. In the years that followed, he guided the FBI through profound transformation, reshaping it to confront the evolving threat of global terrorism while preserving its core commitment to justice and the rule of law.
What set Mueller apart was not only his leadership, but his character. He was a quiet and humble professional--deliberate in judgment, disciplined in conduct, and unwavering in principle. He did not seek the spotlight, nor did he govern through rhetoric. Instead, he led by example, holding himself to the same exacting standards he expected of others. In doing so, he reinforced a culture where integrity was non-negotiable and service was its own reward. The example set by Robert Mueller established a standard of quiet professionalism, integrity, and disciplined leadership that permeated every level of the Bureau. Long after his departure, that example endures--shaping decision-making, reinforcing accountability, and continuing to guide the conduct of FBI personnel to this day.
In the final measure, the strength of the FBI lies not in its authorities or resources, but in its people. Men and women who, day after day, choose duty over comfort, principle over expedience, and service over self. Their work is often unseen, their successes frequently unheralded. But the nation they protect is safer because of their steadfast commitment--and because they carry forward a tradition defined not just by excellence, but by honor.
Assessment of Allegations of Political Targeting
The agents, analysts, and professional staff with whom I served are dedicated public servants committed to upholding the Constitution and protecting the American people. They approach their responsibilities with professionalism, discipline, and a clear sense of duty. Assertions that the FBI engages in broad or coordinated efforts to investigate individuals or groups based on political affiliation are inconsistent with my experience and understanding of the Bureau's structure and safeguards.
The combination of predication requirements, supervisory and legal review, documentation standards, and judicial oversight creates multiple points at which improper or unsupported investigative actions would be identified and challenged.
While no system is immune from error, the framework in place is specifically designed to prevent the type of politically motivated conduct that has been alleged.
It is critical that any assessment of wrongdoing or missteps by the FBI be grounded in an accurate understanding of its investigations, operations, and professional standards and not based on unfounded allegations, conspiracy theories, or the isolated actions of a single bad actor.
Organizational Stability and Effectiveness
Recent shifts in leadership priorities and operational direction within the Federal Bureau of Investigation have raised concerns regarding the allocation of resources and the potential downstream impact on national security. While the FBI has always been a multi-mission organization, its national security and major investigative priorities--counterterrorism, counterintelligence, Transnational Organized Crime, Human Trafficking, and the investigation of significant cyber threats--require sustained focus, specialized expertise, and continuity of effort.
Decisions to redirect FBI personnel toward missions such as expanded support to immigration-related enforcement or visible foot patrols in Washington, D.C., represent a notable departure from traditional utilization of Bureau resources.
These assignments are not only a waste and misuse of the exquisite capabilities of the FBI, but they also carry a measurable opportunity cost. FBI agents and analysts are trained to operate in complex investigative environments--developing human sources, analyzing intelligence streams, and conducting long-term national security investigations. When those capabilities are reassigned to functions that do not fully leverage that expertise, the Bureau's ability to maintain pressure on sophisticated adversaries is diminished.
Diverting FBI resources away from National security investigations, Transnational Organized Crime, and Human Trafficking inevitably degrades the Bureau's ability to sustain long-term intelligence driven investigations needed to mitigate these threats. These threats do not pause to accommodate internal reprioritization.
Counterterrorism cases often require continuous monitoring and rapid exploitation of intelligence. Counterintelligence investigations demand patience, precision, and long-term investment. Cyber threats evolve at a pace that requires constant attention and highly specialized skill sets. Human trafficking networks and transnational organized crime cases depend on continuity, specialized expertise, and deep coordination across jurisdictions--elements that are weakened when personnel and attention are redirected elsewhere. Even temporary diversion of experienced personnel can slow investigative tempo, create gaps in coverage, and increase the risk that emerging threats go undetected or insufficiently addressed.
The alarming removal and reassignment of scores of experienced FBI personnel under circumstances that appear to be politically influenced and without justification has created rampant instability throughout the FBI workforce. The FBI's strength lies not only in its authorities, but in the depth of experience and institutional knowledge held by its workforce. The loss of seasoned agents and leaders--particularly in critical mission areas--is disruptive to ongoing investigations, weakens mentorship structures, and erodes operational continuity.
Equally significant is the impact on morale and professional confidence. FBI career professionals are now concerned that they could be fired at any time for simply doing their job and conducting lawful investigations that were assigned to them.
The result is the erosion of trust and confidence in the impartiality of FBI leadership, apprehension by many to engage in any investigative action that may irritate the current administration or its supporters, and a desire by many to leave the FBI.
Taken together, these trends--resource diversion and workforce disruption--create a compounding effect. At a time when the current threat landscape is complex and elevated, as a result of the War with Iran and Great Power Competition - encompassing terrorism, state-sponsored espionage, and increasingly sophisticated cyber operations--it is essential that decisions reinforce rather than detract from the Bureau's priority missions, and avoid further reduction of investigative capacity, fragmentation of institutional knowledge, and dilution of focus on the most consequential threats facing the United States. Maintaining disciplined prioritization of resources and preserving the integrity and stability of the professional workforce are not administrative considerations; they are foundational to national security.
Conclusion
The effectiveness and legitimacy of the FBI depend on its independence from political influence. That independence is reinforced through training, institutional culture, and oversight mechanisms designed to ensure objectivity and accountability.
It is important to acknowledge that the FBI, like any large institution, must continually strive to improve and to maintain the confidence of the public it serves.Oversight by Congress is an essential component of that process, promoting transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law.
President George Washington in his farewell address stressed that the health and survival of the Republic required in part that government leaders demonstrate virtue and avoid hyper-partisan endeavors - It is from that perspective that I submit this testimony.
I appreciate the Committee's attention to these matters and stand ready to provide any additional information that may assist in its work.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/e1cffedb-0b60-1a17-1c04-9c7b647eb4c0/2026-03-24_Testimony_OLeary.pdf
Article III Project Senior Counsel Chamberlain Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 10 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights released the following testimony by Will Chamberlain, senior counsel of Article III Project, Raleigh, North Carolina, from a March 24, 2026, hearing entitled "Arctic Frost: A Modern Watergate":* * *
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Durbin, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
On February 26, 2025, Reuters broke a remarkable story. They reported first that in 2022 and 2023, Jack Smith and the Biden Justice Department subpoenaed toll ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 10 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights released the following testimony by Will Chamberlain, senior counsel of Article III Project, Raleigh, North Carolina, from a March 24, 2026, hearing entitled "Arctic Frost: A Modern Watergate": * * * Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Durbin, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. On February 26, 2025, Reuters broke a remarkable story. They reported first that in 2022 and 2023, Jack Smith and the Biden Justice Department subpoenaed tollrecords of calls from Kash Patel and Susie Wiles as part of the now-infamous Arctic Frost investigation./1
Both were private citizens at the time, and this surveillance continued while Wiles was co-managing President Trump's election campaign. This was troubling, but it sadly wasn't shocking; this committee has been investigating Smith's abuse of his subpoena power against a slew of Republican Senators alongside Judge James Boasberg's unlawful nondisclosure orders that hid the existence of the subpoenas from those Senators.
But Reuters, if anything, buried the lede. The article also revealed that in 2023 the Biden FBI had surreptitiously recorded a phone call between Susie Wiles and her attorney./2
This was a remarkable breach of attorney-client privilege. The Reuters article, relying on two FBI sources, claimed that Wiles' attorney had been aware of the surveillance on the phone call, which, if it were true, would have been a shocking ethical breach by Wiles' lawyer./3
The following day, however, Wiles' lawyer denied having consented to any such recording, stating correctly that "if [he] ever pulled a stunt like that [he] wouldn't--and shouldn't--have a license to practice law."/4
His denial is, in my view, credible: what lawyer in their right mind would secretly consent to law enforcement recording a privileged phone call with their client?
But the lawyer's denial raises more questions than it answers. Why, then, did two FBI sources tell Reuters that the lawyer had consented? Were the sources lying, or were they relying on false records created by FBI agents working with Smith? It wouldn't be the first time FBI personnel have falsified records in their pursuit of President Trump. Remember that Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, pled guilty to intentionally falsifying information to obtain a FISA warrant in the Russiagate investigation./5
* * *
1 See Jana Winter, Exclusive: FBI obtained Kash Patel and Susie Wiles phone records during Biden administration, Reuters (Feb. 25, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-obtained-kash-patel-susie-wiles-phone-recordsduring-biden-administration-2026-02-25/.
2 See id.
3 See, e.g., Model Rules of Pro. Conduct rr. 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 8.4(c) (A.B.A. 2025)
4 Emma Colton, Susie Wiles' lawyer denies approving FBI recording, says he'd lose license over 'stunt', Fox News (Feb. 27, 2026), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/susie-wiles-lawyer-denies-approving-fbi-recording-says-hedlose-license-over-stunt
5 See Eric Tucker, Ex-FBI lawyer admits to false statement during Russia probe, Associated Press (Aug. 19, 2020), https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-b9b3c7ef398d00d5dfee9170d66cefec.
* * *
The scandal isn't merely that this phone call was recorded; it's also about how the records of the recording were hidden. The FBI's primary digital case management system is called Sentinel.
Within it, investigators can apply a special designation to a file called "Prohibited Access"; files coded this way become completely invisible in standard Sentinel searches./6
If an agent runs a keyword search that should hit these documents, the system returns a false negative -- it reports "no responsive documents" even though they exist./7
While this "prohibited access" designation might make theoretical sense for files dealing with the most sensitive classified matters, it clearly does not make sense that records of Susie Wiles' phone call being surveilled would qualify. The agent who marked these records "prohibited" would have known that. If Wiles' lawyer had been aware of the recording, it would have constituted "consensual monitoring." Monitoring such a call would likely require DOJ approval, but it could be lawful./8
But if Wiles' lawyer did not consent to the recording, we are likely looking at an illegal wiretap/9 of a phone call between a Presidential campaign manager and her own lawyer, one where the agent or agents who conducted the wiretap lied about Wiles' lawyer's lack of consent and then coded it as a "prohibited file" in the hopes that no one would ever find out about it. This would be a more brazen FBI intervention into domestic politics than anything during the Russiagate investigation, which is certainly saying something.
We often hear liberal law professors complain about the Trump administration undermining the DOJ and FBI's "independence." Sophisticated listeners should immediately translate "independent" as "unaccountable." Illegal wiretaps and inappropriate prohibited file classifications are the fruits of an "independent" FBI that acted with impunity because it was not subject to the democratic accountability that our Constitution demands. The President is tasked with the responsibility to "take care" that our laws be faithfully executed,/10 not to submit to the FBI and DOJ transforming themselves into an unaccountable fourth branch of government. This body can help by providing essential oversight and scrutiny.
I welcome any questions.
* * *
6 See Hans Mahncke, New Docs Reveal How FBI Insiders Buried Evidence of Spygate Crimes, The Federalist (May 30, 2025), https://thefederalist.com/2025/05/30/new-docs-reveal-how-fbi-insiders-buried-evidence-of-spygatecrimes.
7 See id.
8 See Justice Manual Sec. 9-7.302 (U.S. Dep't of Justice).
9 See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(1)(a).
10 U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 3.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/e1cffedb-0b60-1a17-1c04-9c7b647eb4c0/2026-03-24_Testimony_Chamberlain.pdf