Jamie Raskin on Government Transparency

Public disputes concerning what governments and public bodies disclose about their own conduct, data and records, including the completeness, timing and accuracy of what they publish.

How we classify topics

Counts show individual statements. They do not assign an overall position.

Statement history

3 statements on this page. Dates: January 22, 2026 to July 30, 2026

3 matching statements. Dates: January 22, 2026 to July 30, 2026

3 published statements. Dates: January 22, 2026 to July 30, 2026

Condemned

2 published statements. Dates: April 16, 2026 to July 30, 2026

2 statements on this page. Dates: April 16, 2026 to July 30, 2026

Jamie Raskin

Role at the time: U.S. representative for Maryland and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee

July 30, 2026Condemned

Statement summary

Jamie Raskin and Pramila Jayapal wrote to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and acting ICE Director David Venturella on July 30, 2026 that DHS made false and unsubstantiated allegations about people its agents shot, including Ruben Ray Martinez, and that later evidence contradicted DHS's claims that they were attacking officers. They asked DHS to equip every agent with a functioning body-worn camera and to hold agents accountable who do not turn them on.

“DHS and its component agencies have consistently made false and unsubstantiated allegations about people its agents shot, including Renée Good, Alex Pretti, Ruben Ray Martinez, and Marimar Martinez. DHS initially claimed these U.S. citizens, all of whom they either killed or maimed, were attacking law enforcement officers. In each case, evidence later emerged that definitively contradicted the government's claims, showing that DHS made false or misleading statements.”

Jamie Raskin

Role at the time: Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, in a letter to Jared Kushner

April 16, 2026Condemned

Response to this claim

Jared Kushner's simultaneous roles as Special Envoy for Peace and chief executive of Affinity Partners, which has raised billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, create a glaring and incurable conflict of interest.

“From the standpoint of the American people, your decision to act in these two roles—one public for the government and one private for personal profit—creates a glaring and incurable conflict of interest. … Between 2021 and 2026, you raised into your investment firm billions of dollars in new investments from leading Middle Eastern monarchies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates—often then turning around and investing those very same funds in Israeli companies closely tied to the military and defense establishment.”

Read the original textLetter from Rep. Jamie Raskin to Jared Kushner, Founder and CEO of Affinity Partners (April 16, 2026) · Jamie RaskinPages 1-4 (opening paragraphs and the paragraph beginning 'You even accelerated your capital fundraising'); document requests on pages 5-6

A letter from the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee to Jared Kushner at Affinity Partners, with a news release dated April 17. It asks for 15 categories of records by April 30, 2026, including communications with Saudi, Emirati, Qatari and Israeli officials and records about Affinity's investors and fund investments. It says the committee is investigating, but it is a request from the minority side and carries no compulsory process. The letter names no Israeli company; its sentence about Israeli companies closely tied to the military and defense establishment cites a 2024 New York Times article.

Archived copy

Why we used this label

The reference point is the proposition that Kushner's private business through Affinity, including its Israeli investments and Gulf capital, creates a conflict of interest with his role in U.S. Middle East negotiations. The letter states that the two roles create "a glaring and incurable conflict of interest" and cites the Gulf funding and the Israeli investments as grounds, so we used Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization. It loses because the letter does more than dispute a description: it says the arrangement is a conflict.

Read statement Does Jared Kushner's Affinity Partners conflict with his role in Middle East negotiations, as congressional Democrats and ethics groups say?

Defended or excused

1 published statement. Dates: January 22, 2026

1 statement on this page. Dates: January 22, 2026

Jamie Raskin

Role at the time: U.S. representative from Maryland and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee

January 22, 2026Defended or excused

Statement summary

In his opening statement at the House Judiciary Committee's January 22, 2026 hearing with Smith, Rep. Jamie Raskin said Republicans had complained about the special counsel's review of toll records, which he described as phone records showing only the timing and duration of calls and no content. He said the records were lawfully subpoenaed because Donald Trump made those members of Congress relevant to the investigation by choosing to call them to advance what Raskin called a criminal scheme.

“My colleagues have complained about the Special Counsel’s review of toll records, which are phone records like a phone bill showing only the timing and duration of calls and containing no content, no substance whatsoever from the calls. But those records were lawfully subpoenaed because Donald Trump made those Members of Congress relevant to the investigation. It was Trump who chose to call them to advance his criminal scheme.”

Read the official statementRanking Member Raskin's Opening Statement at Hearing with Special Counsel Jack Smith · House Committee on the JudiciaryOpening statement, paragraph beginning "My colleagues have complained about the Special Counsel's review of toll records"

House Judiciary Committee Democrats' text of Ranking Member Jamie Raskin's opening remarks at the committee's January 22, 2026 hearing with Jack Smith. In one paragraph Raskin addresses Republican complaints about the toll records of members of Congress.

Archived copy

Why we used this label

The case asks whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper. Raskin said the toll records were lawfully subpoenaed because Trump made those members relevant to the investigation. That defends the collection as proper, so we labeled it Defended or excused.

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