Posted October 2019, updated September 2026
Click here to view a PDF with footnoted citations and permanent links
The first Trump Administration took unprecedented steps to impede congressional oversight, as documented in a Co-Equal oversight precedent on Trump Administration Oversight Precedents. The Trump Administration’s efforts to frustrate oversight had an Achilles heel, however: testimony by career and other federal officials. This was illustrated during the first Trump impeachment, which relied on testimony from federal officials to overcome a White House directive prohibiting cooperation with the impeachment investigation.
At least nine federal laws protect the right of federal officials to communicate with Congress. Under the best known, the Whistleblower Protection Act, disclosures of unclassified information to Congress receive the broadest level of protection, equivalent to disclosures to an inspector general or the Office of Special Counsel and greater than the protection afforded to disclosures to the media. Other laws impose civil and criminal sanctions on individuals who try to interfere with the right of federal officials to communicate with Congress. And appropriations riders make it illegal to pay the salary of a federal employee who attempts to prevent a communication with Congress. There are also special rules for communicating classified information to Congress.
Despite these statutory protections, the White House ordered all federal officials to refuse to provide documents or testimony to Congress during the first Trump impeachment. As directed by the White House, the heads of federal agencies produced no documents subpoenaed by Congress. But the result was different with respect to testimony. When served with a subpoena, key career officials determined that they had a legal obligation to comply and did so despite the order not to appear. A few political appointees also made a similar decision. Their testimony provided the foundation for the House’s first article of impeachment, and the White House’s order not to provide documents or testimony became the basis for the second article.
The Trump Administration’s effort to prevent federal officials from testifying before Congress was unprecedented, but Congress’s reliance on testimony from career officials was not. Many congressional investigations have relied on extensive testimony from career officials, and a wide range of career officials have testified before Congress.
Congress’ oversight authorities are inherent in its legislative powers under Article I of the Constitution. These powers include the authority to compel testimony of officials in the executive branch.
Congress has enacted at least nine laws that protect the right of Congress to receive information from federal officials. The Whistleblower Protection Act (5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)) protects federal employees against adverse personnel action for disclosing unclassified information to Congress that evidences a “violation of any law, rule, or regulation or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.” These disclosures to Congress are protected even when another federal law, such as the Trade Secrets Act, would prohibit their public disclosure. This provides career employees who communicate with Congress the broadest level of protection, equivalent to the level of protection provided for communications with inspector generals and the Office of Special Counsel. In contrast, disclosures to the media are not protected if public disclosure is prohibited by law. Under the Whistleblower Protection Act, disclosure of classified information to Congress is also protected if the information was classified by an agency outside the intelligence community and does not reveal sources and methods.
The Lloyd LaFollette Act (5 U.S.C. § 7211) protects an even broader range of communications, providing that “[t]he rights of employees … to petition Congress or a member of Congress, or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied.”
The Anti-Gag Rule (5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(13)) makes it a prohibited personnel practice to implement or enforce any nondisclosure policy that fails to inform the affected employees of their “'rights created by existing statute … relating to … communications to Congress … or any other whistleblower protection.’”
With respect to members of the intelligence community, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act sets forth procedures for reporting information of concern to Congress consistent with ensuring the security of classified information.
Violations of these laws can result in serious consequences. Engaging in prohibited personnel practices, such as violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act and the Anti-Gag Rule, can lead to suspension, demotion, removal from office, or debarment (5 U.S.C. § 1215). The Office of the Special Counsel has authority to investigate alleged prohibited personnel practices and recommend agency disciplinary action (5 U.S.C. § 1212). If the agency head does not act, the Special Counsel has independent authority to seek disciplinary action before the Merit Systems Protection Board (5 U.S.C. § 1215). If the prohibited personnel action involves retaliation against an employee, additional disciplinary procedures are triggered. Under the Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Act of 2017 (5 U.S.C. § 7515), a finding by the Special Counsel that an official retaliated against a whistleblower sets in motion a mandatory disciplinary proceeding in which the minimum sanction for the first retaliatory act is a suspension of at least three days and the sanction for the second retaliatory act is termination of the official.
The obstruction of Congress statute (18 U.S.C. § 1505) makes it a crime for any individual who “corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede ... the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress.” A Congressional Research Service analysis found that a person who “conceals, or covers up” material facts from Congress could also be prosecuted for false statements and concealment.
In addition, attempts to intimidate a career official called to testify before Congress could violate multiple sections of the federal witness tampering statute. This law provides for criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison for someone who “knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person” with the intent to “influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding” – including a congressional proceeding. This law also provides for up to three years in prison for anyone who “intentionally harasses” a witness and “thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades” the witness from“ attending or testifying in an official proceeding.”
As demonstrated by a 2017 action by the Trump Administration, officials who violate these laws during one administration can face sanctions for their actions in the next administration. In 2016, GAO issued an opinion recommending recoupment of salaries of officials at the Department of Housing and Urban Development based on their interference with a congressional request for testimony from a career HUD official during the Obama Administration. Although the Obama Administration took no action, the Trump Administration initiated collection efforts in 2017 “to recoup salary previously paid to [the] former Deputy Assistant Secretary.”
Language enacted in annual appropriations measures reinforces the laws that protect the right of Congress to receive information from federal officials. Section 713 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 provides that no funds are available for the salary of any federal employee who “prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government from having any direct oral or written communication or contact with any Member, Committee, or subcommittee of the Congress …, irrespective of whether such communication or contact is at the initiative of such other officer or employee or in response to the request or inquiry of such Member, committee, or subcommittee.” Language in section 743 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 provides that no funds may be used to implement or enforce any nondisclosure policy that does not advise federal employees of their statutory protections to communicate with Congress.
Violations of appropriations riders are violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341), which can trigger both civil penalties and criminal penalties. Violations of appropriations riders can also lead to a claim under the Federal Claims Collection Act (31 U.S.C. § 3711) for recoupment of salary.
Just the threat of prosecution for possible violations of such appropriations riders can help Congress conduct oversight of the Executive Branch. In May 2019, House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings requested testimony from several federal officials as part of an investigation into Trump Administration efforts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. Census questionnaire.
In individual letters to those officials, he noted that any federal employee who prevented or attempted to prevent them from testifying could have their salary withheld pursuant to a 2019 appropriations rider. Four of them ultimately provided transcribed interview testimony to the committee.
In August 2019, an unnamed CIA officer made a whistleblower disclosure to the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, alleging that President Trump was “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.” He claimed that during a July 25, 2019, phone call, President Trump attempted to pressure the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to investigate the Biden family’s activities in Ukraine.
This disclosure triggered a congressional investigation led by three House Committees: the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Shortly thereafter, on September 24, 2019, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that those three Committees – along with the House Judiciary Committee, House Ways and Means Committee, and House Financial Services Committee – would conduct an impeachment investigation. The Speaker’s directive was subsequently ratified by the full House.
Congress’s investigative authority is at its apex during impeachment because the Constitution vests the House with “the sole Power of Impeachment.” As the Congressional Research Service recounts, “Since nearly its inception, the House has viewed its impeachment power as including ‘the right of inquiry … to the fullest and most unlimited extent,’ and “certainly impl[ying] a right to inspect every paper and transaction in any department.’” Despite Congress’s express constitutional authority, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and three of the investigating committees to announce that the Trump Administration would not cooperate, stating “President Trump cannot permit his Administration to participate in this partisan inquiry.”
Consistent with this directive, not a single document was produced by the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the State Department, the Defense Department, or the Energy Department responsive to subpoenas issued during the investigation. Likewise, senior political appointees followed President Trump’s instructions in refusing to provide testimony voluntarily or under subpoena, including Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Acting OMB Director Russell Vought and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
Career officials made a different decision. When faced with a conflict between a congressional subpoena to appear for testimony in a deposition or hearing and the White House directive not to cooperate, key career officials elected to obey the subpoena. They included Marie Yovanovitch, the former Ambassador to Ukraine; William B. Taylor, the acting ambassador for Ukraine; David Holmes, the Counselor for Political Affairs in Ukraine; Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, Director of European Affairs for the National Security Council; and Jennifer Williams, a career official detailed to the Vice President Pence’s office. Several political appointees also made a similar decision, such as Gordon Sondland, the Ambassador to the European Union, and Fiona Hill, the former Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe and Russian Affairs at the National Security Council.
The result was the opposite of the apparent intent of the White House. Instead of slowing down Congress’s impeachment investigation, the Administration turbocharged it by forcing the Committees to bypass time-consuming disputes over document production and allowing them to jump immediately to taking testimony from eyewitnesses. Within two months of the start of the impeachment investigation, the House Intelligence Committee held five days of compelling public hearings. The final report of the three investigating committees was adopted by the House Intelligence Committee on December 3, 2019, just ten weeks after the impeachment investigation began.
Many other congressional investigations have involved extensive testimony from career employees. For example, the House Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi interviewed over 60 career officials in the Departments of State and Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency. The Senate Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters took testimony from over 30 career officials across the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of the Treasury, and the White House.
Career civil servants who have provided testimony to oversight proceedings have held a wide variety of positions, including:
Beyond the voluminous public record of career official testimony to Congress, there also have been numerous instances where congressional committees obtained testimony from career officials in transcribed interviews to advance committee oversight without even publicly identifying these individual witnesses.
The House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack on Benghazi conducted dozens of transcribed interviews of career officials at the State Department during the Committee’s investigation of the 2012 attack on the State Department compound in Libya (2014-16). These included:
To assess how common testimony of career officials is, Co-Equal reviewed a two-month period in 2007 during the George W. Bush Administration after Democrats regained control of the House and Senate and a comparable two-month period in 2011 after Republicans regained control of the House during the Obama Administration. This review of the two two-month periods showed extensive testimony by career officials testifying routinely before committees. At least 97 career officials serving during the George W. Bush Administration testified before the House and Senate between May and June 2007 and at least 103 career officials in the Obama Administration testified before Congress between May and June 2011.
The full list of career officials who testified during these two two-month periods can be found here.
