Cmte Intelligence (D) RSS Articles

Himes Statement on Firing of Pam Bondi

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Pam Bondi’s tenure as Attorney General will be remembered for her unprecedented politicization and weaponization of the Department of Justice. Whether by illegally obscuring the Epstein files, mass firing apolitical staff, or directing the Department of Justice to target Donald Trump’s political opponents, Bondi has been unfailing in her acquiescence to Trump over the Constitution. It seems that her firing has more to do with the failure of her many abusive investigations, something the President will learn was not about Bondi and more about the rule of law.

Himes Statement on Reported FBI Plans to Release Swalwell Investigation Documents

Sat, 28 Mar 2026 04:00:00 GMT

WASHINGTON — Congressman Jim Himes (CT-04), Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, today released the following statement regarding reports that FBI Director Kash Patel is planning to release documents related to a decade old investigation into Congressman Eric Swalwell.

“Reopening or publicizing a ten year old counterintelligence investigation, one that found no evidence of wrongdoing, weeks before an election would be a shocking abuse, even by the standards of Kash Patel. With midterm elections approaching, this Administration should be focused on bolstering our election integrity, not increasing confusion and distrust. If these reports are true, it would demonstrate once again that politics come before national security and the safety of the American people for this Administration.”

Himes Delivers Opening Statement at House Intelligence Committee Annual Worldwide Threats Hearing

Thu, 19 Mar 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Today, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Jim Himes (CT-04) delivered the following opening remarks at the Committee's annual Worldwide Threats hearing.

View the full remarks here.

As delivered:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and a big welcome to all of our witnesses. I hope that whatever else is said today that you will convey to your workforces our deep admiration and appreciation for their diligence, their commitment and their sacrifice.

Sometimes this moment feels a little bit like that old Billy Joel song We Didn’t Start the Fire: North Korea, Red China, war in Ukraine, Greenland, Cuba, terrorism, burning drug boats and of course, the massive fire that we did start, our latest Middle Eastern war.

Where to begin? Our national elections are about seven months away, and plenty of Americans are worried that President Trump may indeed, as he said, “take control.” Meanwhile, we are not receiving the traditional indications or warnings of foreign interference efforts to interfere in those elections.

There have been several terrorist attacks in recent weeks, and meanwhile the FBI, our premier counter terrorism agency has pivoted hard to immigration enforcement.

But I can’t begin with anything other than that fire that we did start: Iran.

The constitution to which every single one of us swears an oath reserves decisions of war to the representatives of the people. And that’s not ink on parchment, there are good reasons for that.

First, let’s start with why. Why did we and are we risking our blood and treasure on a deeply risky venture, one that the President of the United States and the Director of National Intelligence have spent years telling us is a terrible idea.

The president has said that Iran was preparing an imminent attack on the United States. That is not true. As awful as the regime is and always has been, not one of your agencies has produced a single report saying that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States.

The president also claimed that Iran would soon possess a nuclear weapon, perhaps in weeks. That is also not true. It is not supported by a single report from your agencies, and it is certainly belied by the repeated claim that Iran’s nuclear capability was obliterated mere months ago.

Second, let’s consider the consequences, as the Congress should have done.

The Congress, not one man, should consider whether our constituents in uniform will live or die.

The Congress, not one man, should decide if Americans to will spend an extra $30 a week to fill their gas tanks.

The Congress, not one man, should consider if it is wise to allow the Russians to sell their oil to India so that they have millions of dollars with which to kill the Ukrainians who we are now begging for help to defend ourselves against Iranian drones.

Finally, had the administration chosen to abide by the constitution, Congress might have considered the answer to General Petraeus’ all important question: tell me how this ends.

When the Iranian navy is sunk and the missile launchers destroyed, and we have re-obliterated the nuclear infrastructure, do we declare victory and sail away? How do we feel about a new supreme leader who is more extreme and vicious and dedicated to the development of a nuclear weapon than the last one? Do we do a deal with him? How do we get him to open the strait of Hormuz? Do we bomb more? And if we sail away and declare victory, are we back there nine months from now to re-sink a rebuilt navy, and re-bomb the rebuilt missile launchers? Is this going to be an every nine month thing or is it going to be annual?

The very core purpose of the intelligence community is to answer these questions for the president, for us, and for the American people.

Right now, as we watch the dignified transfer of lost American patriots at Dover, as we watch gasoline approach five dollars a gallon, as we watch our allies mocking us on the world stage, we need to know: Were those questions asked? How did you answer them for the President of the United States? And did he listen?

I understand that the administration may come to the Congress to ask for funding of $200 billion for this war. As you answer questions to us today, I’d ask you to remember that old saying “if you want me there for the landing, make sure I’m there at the takeoff.

Himes, Meeks, Smith, DeLauro, McCollum Send Letter to Iran Briefers Demanding Direct Answers on U.S. Military Operations Against Iran.

Tue, 03 Mar 2026 05:00:00 GMT

Washington, DC – Representatives Jim Himes, Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Gregory W. Meeks, Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; Adam Smith, Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee; Rosa DeLauro; Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee; and Betty McCollum, Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense sent a letter to top Trump administration officials set to brief Congress today.

The letter, addressed to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth; Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Ratcliffe; and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, asked for direct and comprehensive answers on critical questions concerning ongoing U.S. military operations against Iran.

A PDF of the full letter can be found here.

“A number of our brave service members have already lost their lives in this conflict, and the American people are entitled to clear answers including why this conflict began, what objectives justify continued military engagement, and what guardrails are in place to prevent a broader or protracted regional war.

“Tomorrow, your classified briefing to Members of Congress regarding ongoing military operations must address strategy, intelligence, legal justification, and long-term consequences in concrete terms. Congress has a constitutional responsibility in matters of war and that requires complete and candid information.

“Accordingly, during the briefing tomorrow, we ask that you directly address the following:

1. Imminent Threat Justification. What is the Administration’s legal justification for initiating hostilities? What specific, imminent threat to U.S. personnel, territory, or vital national interests formed the basis for initiating this war?

2. Strategic Objectives and Victory. What are the defined U.S. objectives in this conflict, what conditions would constitute mission success, and under what circumstances would operations cease? Will this require American ground troops fighting in Iran?

3. Regime Change. With the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, who is in control of the country today and who does the Administration expect to control key state institutions at the end of this conflict?

4. Nuclear Security. Who currently controls Iran’s nuclear facilities and materials, and what safeguards are in place to prevent diversion or proliferation, or complete loss of control?

5. Strait of Hormuz and Maritime Security. What is the long term risk to access to, and through the strait for commercial traffic? If oil flows do not resume shortly, it will have impact on Americans’ electric bills and gas bills in addition to global energy markets.

6. Costs and Impacts on Munitions Inventories. What are the costs associated with this operation? What are current U.S. munitions inventories in the region and globally? What is the impact of continued operations on overall U.S. contingency requirements?...”

Himes Statement on Iran

Sat, 28 Feb 2026 05:00:00 GMT

Washington, DC - Today, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Jim Himes (CT-04) released the following statement:

"Everything I have heard from the Administration before and after these strikes on Iran confirms this is a war of choice with no strategic endgame. As I expressed to Secretary Rubio when he briefed the Gang of Eight, military action in this region almost never ends well for the United States, and conflict with Iran can easily spiral and escalate in ways we cannot anticipate. It does not appear that Donald Trump has learned the lessons of history.

"The President’s own statement acknowledges this is war, and the Constitution requires the Administration to come to Congress for authorization, something it has not done. Next week, the House will vote on a war powers resolution, and I will support that resolution. In the meantime, I will be praying for the safety of our servicemembers and all civilians who are in harm’s way."

Dem Leadership, Himes, Meeks, Smith, Khanna Announce Iran WPR Vote Next Week

Thu, 26 Feb 2026 05:00:00 GMT

Washington, DC - U.S. Representatives Jim Himes, Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries; Democratic Whip Katherine Clark; Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar; Gregory W. Meeks, Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; Adam Smith, Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee; and Ro Khanna, Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, today announced that House Democrats will force a vote on the Khanna-Massie Iran War Powers Resolution next week:

"As soon as Congress reconvenes next week, we will compel a vote of the full House of Representatives on the bipartisan Khanna-Massie War Powers resolution. This legislation would require the President to come to Congress to make the case for using military force against Iran. The Iranian regime is brutal and destabilizing, seen most recently in the killing of thousands of protestors. However, undertaking a war of choice in the Middle East, without a full understanding of all the attendant risks to our servicemembers and to escalation, is reckless. We maintain that any such action would be unconstitutional without consultation with and authorization from Congress. Next week, every Member will have the opportunity to go on the record as to whether they support military action against Iran absent Congressional approval.”

Himes, Warner Demand Answers from DNI Gabbard on Delayed Whistleblower Complaint and Withheld Intelligence Report

Wed, 25 Feb 2026 05:00:00 GMT

WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard raising serious concerns about the handling of an urgent whistleblower complaint and the unprecedented withholding of an underlying intelligence report from congressional oversight committees.

In their letter, Warner and Himes noted that the Intelligence Community Inspector General transmitted the whistleblower complaint to Congress more than nine months after it was filed, citing delays within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The lawmakers also highlighted that, despite clear statutory requirements, the whistleblower has still not received required guidance on how to securely communicate with Congress.

The lawmakers further raised concerns about access to the underlying intelligence report, writing: “Furthermore, upon reviewing the complaint, members of the Gang of Eight requested to view the underlying intelligence report referenced in the complaint itself. We were subsequently informed by your office that the IC is unable to provide the unredacted underlying intelligence report ‘due to the assertion of executive privilege.’ This response and assertion of privilege over this type of intelligence report is unprecedented. The request and provision of intelligence reports have been longstanding practice between the IC and its congressional oversight committees.”

Warner and Himes added, “Moreover, it is not clear how this intelligence report could implicate executive privilege, which typically protects the deliberation and communications of the President and his senior advisors. We are aware of recent press reporting that alleges the underlying intelligence involves discussions about the President’s son-in-law, Mr. Jared Kushner, but since the underlying intelligence report has not been made available to Congress and because the complaint itself was heavily redacted, we cannot confirm the accuracy of such allegations. However, we would note that if these reports were true, Mr. Kushner is not serving as a senior administration official and so there is no colorable argument that executive privilege could apply in this instance. Moreover, as you are well aware, the names of U.S. persons are routinely masked in disseminated intelligence reporting.”

They also questioned the basis for the privilege claim, asking whether “the President assert[ed] executive privilege over the underlying intelligence report,” and, “if so, when did he assert such privilege and on what basis.” If the President did not assert privilege, they requested clarity on “who asserted the privilege, when was it asserted, and what was the basis for that assertion.”

The letter concludes with a request that, if no valid claim of privilege exists, the relevant agency “provide the requested report to the Gang of 8 immediately,” and that the complainant be given “security guidance… so that the complainant is able to meet with the appropriate committees as afforded by the law.”

The full text of the letter is available here and below.

February 24, 2026
The Honorable Tulsi Gabbard
Director of National Intelligence
1500 Tysons McLean Drive
Mclean, VA 22102

Dear Director Gabbard:

As you are aware, on February 2, 2026, the Intelligence Community (IC) Inspector General (IG) made available to the “Gang of Eight” an urgent concern whistleblower complaint that had been filed over nine months earlier in May 2025. According to the accompanying letter from the IC IG, the transmission of this complaint to Congress was delayed because, among a variety of other reasons, you claimed the then-Acting General Counsel, Mr. Charles Newman, “had never informed [you] of the outstanding requirement” for providing security guidance. Concerningly, we understand that you still have not provided the complainant with security guidance as required under 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(D)(ii). This provision clearly states that even if the IC IG does not find a complaint to be credible, the Director must still provide the complainant, through the IC IG, “direction on how to contact the congressional intelligence committees in accordance with appropriate security practices.”

Furthermore, upon reviewing the complaint, members of the Gang of Eight requested to view the underlying intelligence report referenced in the complaint itself. We were subsequently informed by your office that the IC is unable to provide the unredacted underlying intelligence report “due to the assertion of executive privilege.” This response and assertion of privilege over this type of intelligence report is unprecedented. The request and provision of intelligence reports have been longstanding practice between the IC and its congressional oversight committees.

Moreover, it is not clear how this intelligence report could implicate executive privilege, which typically protects the deliberation and communications of the President and his senior advisors. We are aware of recent press reporting that alleges the underlying intelligence involves discussions about the President’s son-in-law, Mr. Jared Kushner, but since the underlying intelligence report has not been made available to Congress and because the complaint itself was heavily redacted, we cannot confirm the accuracy of such allegations. However, we would note that if these reports were true, Mr. Kushner is not serving as a senior administration official and so there is no colorable argument that executive privilege could apply in this instance. Moreover, as you are well aware, the names of U.S. persons are routinely masked in disseminated intelligence reporting.

In light of these facts, we request your response to the following questions:

Did the President assert executive privilege over the underlying intelligence report?
If so, when did he assert such privilege and on what basis?
If not, who asserted the privilege, when was it asserted, and what was the basis for that assertion?

If there was no assertion of privilege, we request that you instruct the relevant agency to provide the requested report to the Gang of 8 immediately. Additionally, we wish to request that pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(D), you provide security guidance to the complainant through the IC IG so that the complainant is able to meet with the appropriate committees as afforded by the law.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Himes, Meeks, Smith Oppose U.S. Military Force Against Iran, Urge Continued Diplomacy

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 05:00:00 GMT

Washington, DC -- U.S. Representatives Jim Himes, Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Gregory W. Meeks, Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; and Adam Smith, Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, released the following statement opposing U.S. use of military force against Iran and urging President Trump to continue engaging with Tehran diplomatically:

“We strongly oppose preemptive U.S. military action against Iran, which endangers U.S. personnel and risks drawing Israel and Gulf partners into a wider conflict. Absent a broader diplomatic framework, miliary strikes would be destabilizing, dangerous, and counterproductive to efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East.

“Diplomacy is the most effective tool available to durably constrain Iran’s nuclear program and reduce the risk of a broader regional war. Renewed talks with Tehran show that a diplomatic path remains open, which President Trump should not abandon for a short-term, unauthorized show of military force that leaves Americans less secure.

“The Constitution is clear: decisions to go to war require Congressional authorization. If the President believes military action is necessary, he must come to Congress and make the case that it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so.”

Himes, Meeks, Smith Statement on the Expiration of the New START Treaty

Thu, 05 Feb 2026 05:00:00 GMT

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Representatives Jim Himes, Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Gregory W. Meeks, Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; and Adam Smith, Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, today released the following statement on the expiration of the New START Treaty:

“The expiration of the New START Treaty — the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia — leaves the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals without legally binding constraints for the first time in more than 50 years.

“New START was not perfect, and Russia’s violations of the agreement and other treaties eroded global arms control norms. Nevertheless, the treaty directly advanced U.S. foreign policy and national security interests: it reduced the number of nuclear weapons, helped prevent a dangerous arms race, and provided U.S. national security agencies reliable, verifiable insights into Russia's arsenal.

“The president must move urgently to negotiate a legally binding successor. President Biden bought critical time by extending New START, but Trump has largely squandered that runway by slashing the State Department’s arms control bureau and gutting the workforce responsible for negotiating these agreements. Failing to reach a legal New START successor will send a terrible signal both to Vladimir Putin and to China, which is engaged in its own nuclear buildup, and roll back the clock to the nuclear free-for-all of the Cold War.”

Himes Statement on Gabbard’s Involvement in 2020 Election Probe

Thu, 05 Feb 2026 05:00:00 GMT

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Representatives Jim Himes, Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence today released the following statement:

“Despite the Administration’s bluster, Tulsi Gabbard has yet to offer a plausible explanation, or a defensible legal rationale, for her presence at the FBI raid on the Fulton County Election Office and her team’s reported probe of voting machines in Puerto Rico. The intelligence community operates outside the borders of the US for good reason, and the Director of National Intelligence has no business at a law enforcement operation unless there is a legitimate foreign nexus, of which we’ve seen no indication.

“If, as she claims, Gabbard has compelling evidence to suggest foreign interference against the election infrastructure in question, she must share that information with Congress immediately. Otherwise, in concert with the President’s call for nationalizing elections, this is a political stunt that raises profound Constitutional questions about ODNI’s mission and integrity.”

Impeachment Inquiry: Ms. Cooper & Mr. Hale

Wed, 20 Nov 2019 19:30:00 GMT

Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador Sondland

Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:00:00 GMT

Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador Volker & Mr. Morrison

Tue, 19 Nov 2019 19:30:00 GMT

Impeachment Inquiry: Ms. Williams & Lt. Col. Vindman

Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:00:00 GMT

Impeachment Inquiry: Dr. Hill

Thu, 21 Nov 2019 14:00:00 GMT

Full Committee Open Hearing

Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:00:00 GMT

Full Committee Open Hearing

Fri, 15 Nov 2019 15:00:00 GMT

Full Committee Hearing: Whistleblower Disclosure

Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:00:00 GMT

Full Committee Witness Interview (Closed)

Wed, 25 Sep 2019 13:30:00 GMT

U.S.-Saudi Security Relationship

Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:30:00 GMT