Britt says it "appears the actual reason for the NDOs was to avoid giving those members the opportunity to challenge the subpoenas"
Katie BrittU.S. senator from Alabama and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Sen. Katie Britt's questions to former special counsel Jack Smith on subpoenas, nondisclosure orders and the separation of powers, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing.
Excerpt from 2:15:30 to 2:18:28 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. Katie Britt's questions to Smith on subpoenas, nondisclosure orders and the separation of powers, about 2:15:33 to 2:18:26 on the archived video timeline)
In her questioning of Smith, Sen. Katie Britt said it had been widely reported that his team issued some 44 subpoenas for the toll records of at least 20 Republican members of Congress, including at least eight senators, and asked whether he believed there were reasonable grounds to think those senators would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. Smith answered no. Britt said the records Chairman Grassley released suggest the actual reason for the nondisclosure orders was to keep members from challenging the subpoenas under the Speech or Debate Clause, and that Smith's team took actions that undermined the separation of powers.
“It's been widely reported that you and your team issued some 44 subpoenas related to the tolling records of at least 20 Republican members of Congress, including at least eight U.S. senators, including at least four members of this committee ... it appears the actual reason for the NDOs was to avoid giving those members the opportunity to challenge the subpoenas pursuant to the protection that they enjoyed under the Constitution's speech and debate clause. ... Your team took actions to directly undermine the separation of powers at the heart of the Constitution.”
Original video
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.
Source and context
Original video
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Katie Britt gave figures for the subpoenas, asked whether Smith believed senators would have tampered with evidence, and described what she said was the actual reason for the nondisclosure orders.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Watch the clip from this source at the top of the page.
Before the quotation
Britt began by asking Smith about the FBI's opening of Arctic Frost in April 2022 and about FBI agent Timothy Thibault, whom she said the Office of Special Counsel found had violated the Hatch Act. She then turned to the subpoenas for members' toll records and to the nondisclosure orders that came with them.
After the quotation
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) gave Smith part of his own time to respond to Britt. Smith said the nondisclosure orders "were not predicated on the idea that members of Congress or members of this committee would commit acts of obstruction," but on "a real concern that Donald Trump and his associates would do that because they had done it and they did it again."
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The case asks whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper. Britt said the released records suggest the nondisclosure orders were meant to keep members from challenging the subpoenas under the Speech or Debate Clause, and that the team's actions undermined the separation of powers. That rejects the subpoenas and the nondisclosure orders as improper, so we labeled it Condemned.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseGrassley calls Smith's actions unlawful and unconstitutional
“the major embarrassment of the hearing was Democrats falling over themselves defending unlawful and unconstitutional actions by Jack Smith.”Read statement
Harker argues for personal accountability in Blackburn's suit
“She filed it against Jack Smith in his personal capacity to seek accountability, not money”Read statement
Chenoweth condemns alleged concealment supporting the records order
“I think that it's intolerable behavior”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
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
- Britt says it "appears the actual reason for the NDOs was to avoid giving those members the opportunity to challenge the subpoenas"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/3349-in-her-questioning-of-smith-sen-katie-britt
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Britt says it "appears the actual reason for the NDOs was to avoid giving those members the opportunity to challenge the subpoenas"". First published: 2026-09-29. Last updated: 2026-09-29. https://disputeindex.com/events/3349-in-her-questioning-of-smith-sen-katie-britt