Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, has defended her campaign against allegations of improper ties to defense contractor Navatek by characterizing recent reporting as outdated. However, documents reviewed by ProPublica indicate that the FBI’s inquiry into Collins’ relationship with former Navatek CEO Martin Kao continued into 2025, contrary to the Senator’s assertion that the matter was fully resolved years ago.
The dispute centers on a ProPublica investigation revealing that FBI agents and Department of Justice attorneys had been examining claims that Kao exchanged campaign donations for government contracts. Collins and her staff have stated that the Biden administration’s Justice Department cleared them of wrongdoing. Yet, the investigation that is the subject of the current news cycle was active during the transition to the Trump administration, which subsequently dismissed or reassigned the personnel handling the case.
What the Left Is Saying
Critics and investigative journalists argue that Collins’ defense relies on conflating two distinct phases of federal scrutiny. ProPublica notes that while an initial investigation concluded in 2021 without charges, a renewed inquiry based on Kao’s 2022–2024 allegations remained open until early 2025.
The reporting highlights that Kao, after pleading guilty to campaign finance and loan fraud, provided a 50-page document to the FBI in September 2024 detailing new allegations against Collins, her aides, and a pro-Collins super PAC. Critics point to internal FBI memos from December 2024 stating that "several emails and other documents corroborate Kao’s statements," suggesting that the Senator’s claims of a complete and final exoneration by the Biden administration are misleading.
What the Right Is Saying
Senator Collins and her representatives maintain that no wrongdoing occurred and that federal authorities have already addressed the issue. Collins stated, "In 2021, the Biden Justice Department found there was no wrongdoing by anyone on my campaign staff, my office or me." She further argued that the FBI and courts "totally cleared" her office of these allegations five years prior.
Annie Clark, deputy chief of staff to Collins, emphasized Kao’s credibility issues, stating, "The FBI and the Court obviously did not believe Kao." Clark noted that Kao pled guilty to multiple counts of money laundering, wire fraud, and making false submissions to the FEC, and received an 87-month prison sentence without credit for cooperation. The campaign contends that ProPublica is elevating the testimony of a convicted felon whose claims were ultimately not accepted by the judicial system.
What the Numbers Show
The timeline of the federal inquiry reveals overlapping investigations. The initial FBI probe into Kao began in 2021 and concluded without charges against Collins. A subsequent investigation, triggered by Kao’s cooperation after his guilty plea, involved agents interviewing Kao in September 2024 at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Honolulu.
During this period, a grand jury subpoena issued to Navatek yielded "hundreds of thousands of documents" for FBI review, according to a December 2024 internal document. The investigation was ongoing in early 2025 when President Donald Trump’s administration dismissed or pushed out most federal agents and lawyers working on high-profile corruption cases, including the Kao matter. ProPublica reports that agents had corroborated specific claims, such as an email chain showing Kao disclosed a shell company name to super PAC head Scott Reed regarding a $150,000 donation.
The Bottom Line
The discrepancy between Collins’ public statements and the documented timeline of the FBI’s activity remains a central point of contention in her reelection campaign. While Collins correctly notes that the Biden-era Justice Department did not charge her in the initial 2021 phase of the inquiry, the renewed investigation into Kao’s later allegations was still active under the early Trump administration before being halted by personnel changes.
Voters and analysts will be watching to see if any further documents or testimony emerge from the now-stalled investigation. The case illustrates the complexities of federal corruption probes that span multiple administrations, where the cessation of an inquiry due to staffing changes is distinct from a formal exoneration of all claims.