Biden DOJ Political Appointees Knew of and Approved Unconstitutional Subpoenas of GOP Congressmen's Phone Records
Source: Margot Cleveland. "Docs Show Biden Admin Okayed GOP Phone Record Subpoenas." September 23, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that newly revealed documents show Biden's Justice Department leadership knew about and greenlit secret subpoenas targeting the phone records of Republican Congressmen Jim Jordan and Chip Roy, even though DOJ's own lawyers recognized this likely violated the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause. She claims this proves the Biden administration itself—not just later special counsel Jack Smith—was complicit in spying on political opponents in Congress.
Conclusion
High-level political appointees in the Biden administration's DOJ knew of and allowed unconstitutional subpoenas of congressional Republicans' phone records, prior to Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel, indicating administration-level condonation of a violation of the Speech or Debate Clause.
Premises
- DOJ's Public Integrity Section (PIN) directed prosecutors to notify the Deputy Attorney General via 'urgent report' before subpoenaing Rep. Jim Jordan's toll records in 2022.
- PIN repeated this same notification directive a month later regarding a subpoena for Rep. Chip Roy's records.
- Agents testified under oath that they would have followed PIN's directive to notify the Deputy Attorney General's office.
- PIN itself acknowledged controlling D.C. Circuit precedent (Rayburn) holding that Speech or Debate Clause protections are 'absolute,' yet still approved the subpoenas based on 'litigation risk' assessments.
- Prosecutors obtained nondisclosure orders that prevented Jordan and Roy from asserting their Speech or Debate privilege, as required by law.
- Special Counsel Jack Smith later briefed Attorney General Garland directly about plans to subpoena additional members of Congress, showing awareness of the significance of these actions.
- Prosecutors did not inform the judges issuing nondisclosure orders that the subpoenas targeted members of Congress, suggesting an attempt to conceal the scope of the action from judicial oversight.
Assumptions
- Notification to the Deputy Attorney General's office via 'urgent report' necessarily means that office reviewed and approved the action, rather than merely being informed for record-keeping.
- The failure to inform judges about the congressional targets was a deliberate act of bad faith rather than routine practice or oversight.
- Political appointees at DOJ (as opposed to career officials) were the decision-makers who 'allowed' these subpoenas, implying direct political culpability reaching to Garland and by extension the Biden administration.
- The Rayburn precedent's application to these facts is clear-cut and was obviously being violated, rather than being a genuinely contested legal question as PIN's own analysis suggests.
- Institutional knowledge or awareness of a legal risk equates to endorsement or approval of an unlawful act.