Prepared Opening Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Executive Business Meeting
Thursday, July 17, 2025
Good morning. On today’s agenda, we have twelve nominations. Nicholas Chase and Daniel Rosen, U.S. Attorney nominees, are listed for the first time and will be held over.
We’ll vote today on Emil Bove, nominee to be a judge on the Third Circuit, and district court nominees Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, Kyle Dudek, Jordan Pratt and Edward Artau.
We will also vote on Kurt Wall, Kurt Alme, Lesley Murphy, Jeanine Pirro and Erik Seibert, to be U.S. Attorneys.
We also have the following three bills listed on the agenda for the first time:
These bills will be held over until next week.
Before we begin, I’ll announce that, if we haven’t voted before 10:30, I’ll plan to call the vote on all nominations at that time. If people wish to speak after that time, I will stay as long as needed for their remarks.
I want to address the unfair rhetoric and treatment directed at Mr. Bove by some on this Committee. Frankly, it’s crossed the line.
I’ve served on this Committee for longer than anyone else in this room. I’ve seen a lot of confirmation fights. What we’re witnessing has all the hallmarks of a political hit job timed for maximum media splash with minimum substance.
Let’s get one thing straight: I take whistleblower complaints very seriously. During both Republican and Democratic administrations, I have spent over four decades defending patriotic whistleblowers.
I defended the Ukraine whistleblower’s use of the whistleblower process, despite serious concerns about the substance of his complaint. Concerns that’ve been proven right over time.
Yet, my Democratic colleagues made no effort to support whistleblowers who raised alarms about the Biden family.
During the first Trump administration, I interviewed Donald Trump Jr. and other Republicans as part of our bipartisan investigation into alleged Russian collusion—conducted through this very Committee.
But when it came to the Biden family and his Administration, despite serious allegations and overwhelming evidence of misconduct, Democrats made no effort to investigate or conduct similar interviews. These weren’t fringe claims—they involved potential crimes squarely within this Committee’s jurisdiction, and much of it based on government records.
With respect to the current whistleblower, some have said that Mr. Reuveni isn’t a whistleblower.
On this point, I disagree.
My doors are always open to whistleblowers.
However, the manner and timing of his disclosure isn’t how the process should’ve played out.
For example, I received the whistleblower complaint the morning before Mr. Bove’s nomination hearing—just as the New York Times broke the story.
The Minority apparently received additional records from the whistleblower on July 1 and July 7, but hid them. I didn’t receive them until July 10—the same day the New York Times dropped an exclusive interview with the whistleblower about the files.
This timeline raises serious concerns.
I appreciate that my staff has been able to engage respectfully with the whistleblower, the whistleblower’s lawyers and others who’ve come forward to discuss these allegations. Throughout this process, I’ve treated the complaint in good faith, as I always do.
But that doesn’t mean that I’m always going to agree with the allegations raised.
Earlier this week, I led an effort to review the disclosures document-by-document and analyze the facts. The result? Almost none of the material references Mr. Bove at all. More concerningly, the Democrat summary grossly mischaracterizes the documents it purports to summarize. In short, the documents don’t say what my Democratic colleagues say they do.
Even if you accept most of the claims as true, there’s no scandal here. Government lawyers aggressively litigating and interpreting court orders isn’t misconduct—it’s what lawyers do.
Concerningly, the Minority repeatedly recasts discussion of litigation strategy as wrongdoing—even discussions that reflected the government’s official litigation positions, some of which prevailed on appeal.
These documents give no reason to delay this nomination.
Let’s stick to the facts. The whistleblower alleges misconduct—but ten days after the key event he describes, he signed a brief stating—without qualification—that “the Government has complied with the Court’s orders in this case.”
If he believed the Department defied court orders, why sign a brief as an officer of the court saying it had complied?
During the hearing, Mr. Bove firmly denied the allegations. He testified under oath: “I did not advise any Justice Department attorney to violate court orders.”
Recent public reporting backs his account, and I’d like to enter it into the record. Months before the whistleblower came forward, his former supervisor wrote in a letter that Mr. Bove “advised our team that we must avoid a court order halting an upcoming operation to implement the Act at all costs.” This statement confirms Mr. Bove advised his team to avoid triggering a court order, not defy one—that’s consistent with his testimony.
My staff has also interviewed multiple people who were present for the March 14 meeting described in the whistleblower disclosure. Four separate people other than Mr. Bove who were present in the meeting told us the following:
To my Democratic colleagues who’ve been accusing each of President Trump’s nominees of insufficiently respecting the courts, I’ve got a few questions.
Where was the outrage when Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez said in response to a decision about abortion drug access: “I believe that the Biden administration should ignore this ruling.”
Where was the indignation when Senator Wyden took to the Senate floor and said: “There are moments in history where Americans and their leaders must look at circumstances like this one and say, ‘Enough.’ Not, ‘let’s see how the appeals process plays out,’ or, ‘let’s hope Congress can fix this down the road.’ Just, ‘Enough’… President Biden and the FDA must ignore it.”
Where was the outcry a few weeks ago when Biden-appointed Judge Brian Murphy flatly defied a Supreme Court ruling? Or, when Judge Talwani ordered the Executive Branch to violate federal law and spend taxpayer money in defiance of a law passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.
When it comes from their side, there’s silence. No press releases. No hearings. No letters. That double standard undermines their latest partisan attacks against Mr. Bove.
This Congress alone, Democrats have sent at least 26 letters to 17 agencies or parties demanding records, delays or investigations into President Trump’s nominees. I’m holding them right here.
Like clockwork, just before a hearing or vote, we get another breathless accusation that one of President Trump’s nominees needs to be investigated.
We’ve seen the slanted stories and reckless accusations before. We’ve been down this road. It’s become routine this Congress, but it’s not new. We all remember what Democrats did to Justice Kavanaugh.
As I said during Director Patel’s nomination: “This is becoming a pattern, and I will not facilitate a campaign to undermine the results of the election by delaying the consideration of nominees.”
Mr. Bove has a strong legal background and has served his country honorably. He deserves fair treatment.
The vicious, partisan attacks and obstruction of nominees we’ve seen from Democrats this Congress have to stop. One day, roles will reverse again, and my colleagues will want the same fairness for nominees of their President that they’ve refused to extend to President Trump’s nominees. They should look around the corner, and consider that day.
-30-