Coons calls the nondisclosure orders "legal and appropriate" but says "the current bar for granting NDOs may be too low"

Chris CoonsU.S. senator from Delaware and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; sponsor with Sen. Mike Lee of the NDO Fairness Act

Mixed or conditional

Sen. Chris Coons's questions on nondisclosure orders, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing with former special counsel Jack Smith.

Excerpt from 1:40:57 to 1:43:12 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.

Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)

Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Chris Coons's questions on nondisclosure orders, about 1:41:00 to 1:43:10 on the archived video timeline)

Watch this clip on its own page

Sen. Chris Coons asked Smith whether his nondisclosure requests were fairly typical and fully compliant with Justice Department policy at the time; Smith said yes. Coons said the government's bar for granting nondisclosure orders may be too low, described his NDO Fairness Act with Sen. Mike Lee, and said that colleagues enraged by Smith's pursuit of the orders, which he called legal and appropriate and timely, could do something about it.

“These types of NDO requests are fairly typical in DOJ investigations, and your NDO requests were fully compliant with the Department of Justice policy at the time. ... I believe the government bar, the current bar for granting NDOs may be too low and that government requests for secrecy are too often granted. My NDO Fairness Act with Senator Mike Lee would ensure NDOs are only issued in circumstances requiring secrecy in a way that would better protect all Americans, including members of Congress. ... I'm not suggesting you've done anything wrong. I'm just suggesting that if I have colleagues who were enraged by your legal and appropriate and timely pursuit of NDOs, there's something we can and should do about it.”

Original video

Watch the original video (opens in a new tab)Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Chris Coons's questions on nondisclosure orders, about 1:41:00 to 1:43:10 on the archived video timeline

Official statement

Read the official statement (opens in a new tab)Rep. Fitzgerald's NDO Fairness Act Passes House of Representatives · Scott FitzgeraldFull release

Case updates

Following the fight over members' phone records in Arctic Frost?

Get an email if Blackburn's lawsuit or Hagerty's bar complaint produces a ruling, if the Senate acts on subpoena-notice rules, or if Smith responds.

Important updates only. Free. Confirm your email to start. Unsubscribe anytime. How we handle your email.

The Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., photographed from across a street on a clear day.
Credit: Architect of the Capitol

Where this statement fits

Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?

On September 29, 2026, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled "Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters," with former special counsel Jack Smith as its only witness. Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and other Republicans said that Smith's team, in the FBI's Arctic Frost investigation and its own election case, obtained members of Congress's phone toll records and text messages, used nondisclosure orders to keep members from learning of it, and breached the Speech or Debate Clause. Smith said the toll records were non-content records obtained after he directed his staff to consult the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, and that the nondisclosure orders were consistent with the law and Justice Department policy at the time. Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-IL) called the attacks on Smith "petty, personal, and political." The sides and the documents give different counts of the members affected. The dispute is whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper.

Read the full case

Source and context

Original video

Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) (opens in a new tab) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Chris Coons's questions on nondisclosure orders, about 1:41:00 to 1:43:10 on the archived video timeline

About this source

Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Coons used the end of his time to ask Smith about nondisclosure orders and to describe legislation he sponsors with Sen. Mike Lee.

Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Watch the clip from this source at the top of the page.

Official statement

Rep. Fitzgerald's NDO Fairness Act Passes House of Representatives (opens in a new tab) · Scott FitzgeraldFull release

About this source

Rep. Scott Fitzgerald's (R-WI) release saying the House passed his NDO Fairness Act unanimously on August 31, 2026. It links the bill to Smith's use of nondisclosure orders for members' phone records.

Before the quotation

Coons turned to nondisclosure orders in the last two minutes of his questioning, after asking Smith about the treatment of prosecutors and agents who worked for him. He asked Smith to walk him through how the office obtained nondisclosure orders for members' toll records.

After the quotation

Coons said the NDO Fairness Act had already passed the House by voice vote. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), the bill's House sponsor, said the House passed it unanimously on August 31, 2026.

How this statement is classified

Mixed or conditional

The label describes this statement's response within the context above.

Why this label?

Coons said Smith's orders were compliant with Justice Department policy and that he was not suggesting Smith had done anything wrong, while saying the standard for granting such orders is too low and proposing legislation. Because it defends the orders under existing policy and criticizes the policy itself, we labeled it Mixed or conditional.

Recorded on
Published here

More from this case

Read the full case

Share or embed this statement

Quote card: Chris Coons, Coons calls the nondisclosure orders "legal and appropriate" but says "the current bar for granting NDOs may be too low"Download image (PNG)

The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.

Cite this record

Publisher
The Dispute Index
Title
Coons calls the nondisclosure orders "legal and appropriate" but says "the current bar for granting NDOs may be too low"
First published
Last updated
Permalink
https://disputeindex.com/events/3322-sen-chris-coons-asked-smith-whether-his-nondisclosure

Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.

The Dispute Index. "Coons calls the nondisclosure orders "legal and appropriate" but says "the current bar for granting NDOs may be too low"". First published: 2026-09-29. Last updated: 2026-09-29. https://disputeindex.com/events/3322-sen-chris-coons-asked-smith-whether-his-nondisclosure