1. United States
2. Maine
3. Letter

Congressional Oversight into FBI Bribery Investigation Involving Collins and Others A ProPublica investigation published September 22, 2026 reports that Navatek CEO Martin Kao told FBI agents his company won millions in federal contracts by making political contributions to powerful politicians and their political organizations, including a $150,000 contribution to a super PAC supporting Sen. Susan Collins. Kao reportedly told FBI agents that Collins' super PAC chair confirmed in 2019 that Collins would know the source of the donation, which Kao routed through a shell company, and that Navatek would receive government contracts in return. Kao reported to colleagues that Collins had committed to $32 million in naval contracts; records show the Senate actually allocated at least $10 million that year based on Navatek's proposals. Government contractors are legally barred from making political contributions, and an agreement to exchange political contributions for official acts can constitute criminal bribery. By late 2024, FBI agents had gathered enough evidence to seek approval for a broader bribery investigation involving multiple members of Congress. That investigation went nowhere: the FBI’s anti-corruption unit was eviscerated, and specialized DOJ teams handling public-corruption cases were also severely diminished. The case is now inactive. The FBI says an earlier investigation found nothing implicating Collins, but ProPublica reports that a subsequent 2024 investigation, prompted by Kao’s cooperation and based on additional evidence, was never completed. I am requesting that Congress use its oversight authority to determine why this investigation was discontinued, and whether it warrants renewed investigation or referral to the DOJ Inspector General. Congress should not allow institutional self-protection — of any party, in either chamber — to substitute for a full accounting of credible evidence. I recognize it is possible that you personally, and some of your colleagues, may be named or implicated by ProPublica’s reporting, but the request stands regardless: if you represent the public rather than your own interests, you should welcome this investigation rather than resist it. The public deserves transparency and the full truth, regardless of who that truth implicates.