[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 22, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4207-S4208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           The New York Times

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor once again, as I 
have before, to discuss misleading reporting in the New York Times.
  The New York Times has a global reputation. They work hard to 
maintain that. So I don't understand why their journalists can miss so 
many important facts. This time the misleading article was written by 
Devlin Barrett and a second one was written by Charlie Savage.
  Barrett's article discusses the White House's release of government 
records about an alleged scheme by China to meddle in the 2020 
election. The records at issue showed that FBI personnel suppressed 
intelligence of that alleged Chinese interference.
  Barrett's article said, in part:

       Mr. Grassley and others have cited the Albany memo as 
     evidence that F.B.I. leaders covered up evidence that China 
     might be taking aggressive steps to interfere with the U.S. 
     election results in 2020, because admitting it might 
     contradict prior testimony to Congress from then-F.B.I. 
     Director Wray.

  That is not what I said when I made those records public. That is 
what the FBI said 6 years ago.
  The Albany memo, as the New York Times called it, is actually an FBI 
memo. It contained information from an FBI Confidential Human Source 
and was titled by the FBI. The titles by the FBI:

       Chinese Government Production and Export of Fraudulent U.S. 
     Driver's Licenses to Chinese Sympathizers in the United 
     States, in Order to Create Tens of Thousands of Fraudulent 
     Mail-in Votes for US Presidential Candidate Joe Biden, in 
     late August 2020.

  End of the FBI title.
  Let me emphasize what I said. The memo was an FBI memo based on an 
FBI Confidential Human Source. It was not a Chuck Grassley-created 
memo.
  The FBI analyst involved said the FBI memo ``was coordinated and 
disseminated in textbook fashion.''
  But based on the records the FBI provided to me, the allegations 
weren't fully investigated at the time because the FBI decided to 
recall its own memo.
  The FBI also described the FBI's sources as competent and authentic 
with reporting. So let the FBI do their job and investigate.
  An FBI analyst said in an email--and when I quote this email, the 
words ``me'' and ``I'' refer to the FBI analyst.

       Most concerning to me, is stating the reporting would 
     contradict Director Wray's testimony. I found this troubling 
     because it implied to me that one of the reasons we weren't 
     putting this out is for a political reason, which goes 
     directly against our organization's mission to remain 
     apolitical and simply state what we know. . . . My concern is 
     that I think it gets dangerous if we cite potential political 
     implications as reasons for not putting out our information.

  This FBI analyst raises legitimate concerns. Is the New York Times 
digging into those concerns? In other words, is the New York Times 
journalist doing what journalists should be doing? They ought to be 
good investigators, get all the facts.
  And guess who was involved in recalling the FBI memo: That person was 
then-Deputy Assistant Director Nikki Floris. She was also the main 
briefer for the fake briefing Senator Johnson and I received in August 
of 2020 from the now-disbanded Foreign Influence Task Force. You will 
remember, that was the briefing that was used to attack the Grassley-
Johnson Biden family investigation.
  So I ask, Is the New York Times investigating that material 
connection?
  By the way, my and Senator Johnson's investigation was based on 
authentic bank records, authentic Treasury records, authentic Obama 
administration records, and transcribed interviews. In other words, it 
was not Russian disinformation, as the partisan media tried and failed 
to argue.
  Here, with this FBI memo, I released records last year because the 
facts and evidence ought to breathe. Let the American people see what 
is happening on their watch.
  I also issued the records as support to those FBI agents and analysts 
who were just trying to do their job under extreme pressure from inside 
the FBI.
  I don't know why people in the FBI care if the truth gets out, but a 
lot of people at the FBI get pressured not to let the truth out. And I 
want you to know that I will continue to make records public because 
that is what the taxpayers need and deserve and expect.
  As I said last July about this same FBI memo:

       One way or the other, intelligence must be fully 
     investigated to determine whether it's true, or if it's just 
     smoke and mirrors.

  End of this Senator's quote from last July. That is a quote, by the 
way, that the New York Times failed to mention.
  Now, turning to the Savage article from the New York Times, Charlie 
Savage wrote in part:

       Since President Trump returned to office last year, the 
     senator--

  Referring to Chuck Grassley--

     has released a flood of internal law enforcement files that 
     normally would be off limits to disclosure, sometimes 
     attributing them to ``whistle-blowers'' or not saying who 
     gave them to him.

  The New York Times seems to be very obsessed with how I have obtained 
government records, maybe because they haven't been able to or maybe 
they haven't even tried to get these records. For too many years, the 
executive branch, under both Republicans

[[Page S4208]]

and Democrats, has failed to produce certain records to the Congress of 
the United States. The fact that the Trump administration has produced 
what the New York Times believes wouldn't be normally produced ought to 
be good news to the American people and good news to the New York 
Times. You see, these records are exactly the type that should be 
produced to Congress just as a matter of course, and the Trump 
administration understands that, and I thank them for their 
cooperation.
  Now, I am still not fully satisfied. There are many more records that 
ought to be public. For many years, whistleblowers have been hard at 
work to expose those and many other records. As difficult as it may be 
for the partisan media to understand this, I have made public thousands 
of pages of records to this Congress pursuant to lawful whistleblower 
disclosures. True whistleblowers stick their neck out just for telling 
the truth, and they do it no matter the risk to them. And a lot of 
these whistleblowers ruin themselves professionally by just doing what 
the law requires. So when I do get records, I owe it to the 
whistleblowers to make those records public. That is called 
congressional oversight, and it is my constitutional responsibility to 
get the job of congressional oversight done as the Constitution 
requires.
  This Senator's work will continue. I encourage the Trump 
administration to continue making records public for transparency, and 
hopefully the New York Times will get future stories right.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent for 
the previously scheduled vote to begin now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________