Jay Clayton, President Trump’s nominee to be Director of National Intelligence (DNI), testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on July 15, 2026, in a hearing that repeatedly detoured from questions of intelligence policy into a tense, unresolved argument about the 2020 election. Clayton — currently the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and previously SEC Chairman under Trump’s first term — walked lawmakers through his national security credentials, including prosecutions of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and other narco-traffickers, and pledged to keep intelligence “free from political pressure,” to protect classified information, and to resist “putting hands on the scales” of U.S. elections. But when senators Mark Warner, Angus King, Mark Kelly, and Jon Ossoff pressed him — repeatedly and with visible frustration — to simply say that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, Clayton would only say Biden “was certified” after “our process,” refusing the direct question more than half a dozen times. The hearing also surfaced sharp exchanges over Clayton’s subpoenas of New York Times reporters served at their homes, his handling of unredacted Jeffrey Epstein grand jury materials, and President Trump’s pardon of a convicted narco-trafficker Clayton himself had prosecuted. Committee Chairman Tom Cotton said he intends to hold a vote on Clayton’s nomination early next week. Assistance from Claude AI.
Participants
Committee Leadership
– Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) — Chairman
– Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) — Vice Chairman
Republican Members
– Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho)
– Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
– Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)
– Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)
– Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)
– Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)
– Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)
– Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.)
– Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), ex officio
– Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ex officio
Democratic Members
– Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)
– Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)
– Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)
– Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)
– Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)
– Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)
– Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)
– Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), ex officio
– Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), ex officio
Witness
– Walter “Jay” Clayton III — Nominee to be Director of National Intelligence; currently U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York; former Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2017–2020)
Not every listed committee member is quoted below; this breakdown covers the members who spoke on the record during the hearing as captured in the transcript.
Opening Tribute to Senator Lindsey Graham
Before turning to Clayton’s nomination, Chairman Cotton opened the hearing by paying tribute to former Senator Lindsey Graham, who the committee said had died over the preceding weekend. Cotton noted Graham never served on the Intelligence Committee but was, in his words, “a part of our extended family” through his work on FISA and FBI/DOJ oversight as a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Cotton welcomed Graham’s sister, described as a “new senator, Darlene,” who the committee had met the day before and who Cotton said would “carry forward his legacy.”
Vice Chairman Warner echoed the tribute, adding a lighter note that although Graham wasn’t formally on the committee, “he sure as hell acted like he was on this committee… many times.”
Nominee Background and the Path to the Hearing
Cotton laid out the scope of vetting Clayton had undergone: a 40-page committee questionnaire, more than 200 written answers to advance questions, a completed FBI background investigation, meetings with most committee members, and more than five years of tax returns — made easier, Cotton noted, because this was Clayton’s third time going through a Senate confirmation process (following his SEC chairmanship and his U.S. Attorney appointment).
Cotton also used his opening to thank outgoing DNI Tulsi Gabbard, noting her husband Abraham is battling cancer, and acting DNI Bill Pulte for steps taken to “right-size” the ODNI ahead of Clayton’s arrival.
Sen. Mike Rounds delivered the formal introduction of Clayton, describing him as a “consummate professional” whom Rounds first came to know through the Senate Banking Committee during Clayton’s 2017 SEC confirmation. Rounds highlighted Clayton’s prosecutions in the Southern District of New York — including an Iranian-Iraqi national tied to more than a dozen terrorist attacks in Europe, Maduro, and other narco-traffickers — and argued Clayton’s SEC background gives him a head start on cyber threats, illicit finance, economic competition with China, and artificial intelligence. Rounds noted Clayton holds a TS/SCI security clearance and has an existing working relationship with CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
The Five Standard Questions
Before Clayton’s opening statement, Cotton — as is customary for intelligence nominees — asked him to answer five standard yes-or-no questions on the record. Clayton agreed to all five: to appear before the committee when invited, to send agency officials when requested, to provide requested documents, to ensure his staff cooperates with oversight requests, and to fully brief all committee members (not just the chairman and vice chairman) on intelligence activities and covert actions.
Clayton’s Opening Statement
Clayton thanked President Trump, his wife Gretchen, and his colleagues at the SEC and Department of Justice. He described the DNI’s mission as ensuring that policymakers — “especially the president, our military leaders, and Congress” — receive intelligence that is “timely, objective, and independent.” He said he would pursue an “open-door and walk-the-halls policy” and pledged to engage frequently with both the Senate and House intelligence committees.
He framed his approach to leading a large organization around three principles: a shared commitment to mission, clear strategic objectives, and metrics to assess and improve operations. On his qualifications, Clayton pointed to his Southern District work on foreign terrorist organizations, counterespionage, money laundering, and bribery, as well as his role as a liaison to senior officials at the State Department, Treasury, and the Department of War (the renamed Department of Defense in this administration). At the SEC, he said he had worked on cybersecurity for critical financial infrastructure, countering Chinese exploitation of U.S. markets, and stabilizing markets during COVID-19.
Downsizing the ODNI
Cotton’s opening remarks set the tone for a recurring theme: that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has become bloated since its creation after 9/11. Cotton argued the office should have “dozens, maybe a couple hundred” staff at most rather than the thousands it grew to, and said he expects Clayton to finish the downsizing effort Gabbard began.
Sen. Susan Collins, who co-authored the 2004 legislation creating the ODNI alongside then-Senator Joe Lieberman, pushed back on calls from some administration officials and senators to abolish the office entirely. She recounted advice from former Secretary of State Colin Powell that the intelligence community needed “an empowered quarterback” to prevent the kind of information-sharing failures that preceded the September 11 attacks. Clayton committed to preserving the ODNI and its National Counterterrorism Center, describing his own vision for the office as similar to “a Board of Directors’ role” — providing coordination and oversight across the 17 other intelligence agencies rather than performing operations itself.
Sen. James Lankford later asked Clayton how he’d evaluate whether the ODNI’s staffing — including personnel detailed from other agencies — is correctly sized. Clayton again invoked the board-of-directors analogy, saying such a board should stay “fairly lean” and avoid drifting into day-to-day management, which he said causes a loss of perspective.
Economic Security as National Security
Both Cotton and Rounds pressed Clayton on how his financial-markets background applies to intelligence work. Clayton argued that “national security and economic security are synonymous,” and that market function and integrity are core national security concerns — pointing to the significance of understanding oil price dynamics and broader economic knock-on effects as part of intelligence analysis. Cotton connected this directly to strategic competition with China and Russia. Sen. Ted Budd later asked what structural changes the intelligence community, largely built around a 1947 Cold War model, needs to keep pace with economic threats; Clayton said economic effects should be a larger part of intelligence assessments generally, citing market reactions and energy pricing as examples.
Sen. Todd Young pushed further into this territory, asking how agencies outside the traditional national security space — he named USDA, Commerce, and the SEC — could be better supported with intelligence. Clayton cited a Southern District case involving restricted computer chip shipments to adversary nations as an example of where commercial and national security concerns overlap.
Declassification, Politicization, and the President’s Planned Address
References throughout the hearing pointed to a speech President Trump was expected to deliver “tomorrow night” (the day after the hearing) that senators suggested might involve newly declassified intelligence. Cotton asked Clayton directly what role he’d played in preparing that address. Clayton said he had no involvement, explaining — with Cotton’s agreement — that taking any action presuming his own confirmation would violate a “core principle” for nominees awaiting Senate approval.
Vice Chairman Warner used this opening to press Clayton on declassification generally, extracting commitments that he would: protect classified information under established rules; follow official declassification procedures rather than acting unilaterally; and keep the ODNI’s analysis “free from political pressure and conspiracy theories.” Warner cited a recent internal IC survey showing a rise in the number of intelligence employees who feel their analytic work is being undermined by political interference, and referenced two incidents he characterized as politicization under the current administration: a senior official allegedly telling IC officers to change an assessment because it might make the president “look bad,” and former DNI Gabbard’s involvement in a domestic law enforcement action in Fulton County, Georgia, and the seizure of voting machines in Puerto Rico — actions Warner said fall outside the DNI’s foreign-intelligence mandate.
Sen. Angus King separately invoked Intelligence Community Directive 203, a standing policy requiring that intelligence analysis remain independent of any policy agenda, which Clayton affirmed he agreed with — a commitment that would resurface pointedly later in the hearing.
The 2020 Election: The Hearing’s Defining Exchange
The most contentious and recurring thread of the hearing was a direct, repeated demand from multiple Democratic senators that Clayton state plainly that Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election.
Warner opened this line by asking Clayton if he denied that Biden won. Clayton responded: “I’m not an election denier. Joe Biden was certified as the President of the United States.” Warner accepted this as a non-denial but pressed Clayton to commit that, if confirmed, he would not interfere with or comment inappropriately on U.S. elections and would not “put his hands on the scales” of any American election outcome — commitments Clayton made.
King returned to the question later, asking point-blank, “Who won the 2020 election?” Clayton repeated that he was “not an election denier” and that “Joe Biden was certified,” prompting King to respond, “That’s not an answer to the question.” King also challenged Clayton on past CNBC remarks in which Clayton reportedly said the U.S. is “doing an absolutely terrible job on election integrity.” Clayton clarified he was referring to inadequate election audit trails generally, not asserting proven voter fraud, and said he could not say “definitively” whether fraud exists “until we have better processes.” King countered by citing a Heritage Foundation study finding 1,650 documented fraud cases out of roughly 2 billion votes cast, and asked Clayton to submit written evidence supporting his “terrible job” characterization.
Sen. Mark Kelly pressed the same question from a different angle, asking Clayton directly why Biden was certified as the winner. Clayton said Biden “had the most electoral votes.” When Kelly asked, “So he won the election?” Clayton again declined to simply affirm it, prompting Kelly to argue that the real concern isn’t the history lesson — it’s whether Clayton would be willing to disagree with President Trump inside the Oval Office if he won’t do so in a public hearing.
The sharpest version of this exchange came from Sen. Jon Ossoff, who first secured Clayton’s agreement that he has “an obligation to be honest and forthright” with the committee, then asked repeatedly, “Who won the 2020 election?” Clayton responded each time with a variation of “I’m not going to get into that with you” or “I’ve answered the question,” without stating a name. Ossoff told Clayton his answers “lack credibility” and that his refusal was effectively “humiliating,” accusing him of “indulging the president’s delusions.”
By contrast, Clayton did tell Warner near the end of the hearing, in direct terms: “I’ve acknowledged, Senator, that Joe Biden was the president… And fairly and duly elected under our process” — the closest he came during the hearing to an unqualified statement, though it came only after Warner explicitly supplied the word “fairly.”
Gabbard, Fulton County, and Election Oversight
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand connected the election-integrity exchanges to a broader argument: that after 2016 Russian-interference allegations, the Trump administration removed cyber and foreign-influence oversight personnel from CISA, the FBI, and related offices, while now focused on relitigating the 2020 result. She asked Clayton to commit to restoring the ODNI’s cybersecurity, biosecurity, and foreign malign influence functions, which she said had been stripped under Gabbard. Clayton said he would “commit to making an assessment” of what resources or coordination are needed, without committing to a specific restoration.
Ossoff separately asked Clayton whether he was aware that former DNI Gabbard had been present at a law enforcement raid in Fulton County, Georgia — a domestic matter outside the DNI’s foreign-intelligence mandate — and that Gabbard had reportedly testified her presence was “requested by the President.” Clayton said he first learned about the Fulton County matter in a meeting with Ossoff’s staff the day before the hearing, an answer Ossoff called implausible given the scrutiny already surrounding the episode. Clayton also said he was not aware that the general counsel and deputy general counsel of the ODNI had already given testimony to the committee on the matter. Warner, closing out this thread, said it “strains credibility” that Clayton hadn’t anticipated being asked about Gabbard’s involvement given how much attention it had already drawn on the committee.
Ossoff pressed one further hypothetical: whether it would be appropriate for a DNI to personally oversee execution of a domestic search warrant at a “sensitive election facility” if asked to by the White House chief of staff or the president. Clayton declined to answer, calling it a matter under investigation; Cotton ended the exchange by ruling Ossoff’s time expired, and Ossoff called Clayton “disqualified” as he was cut off.
The New York Times Subpoenas and Press Freedom
Several senators questioned Clayton about subpoenas his office issued to New York Times reporters, served at their private homes, reportedly tied to reporting about security concerns with a Qatar-built aircraft intended to serve as a substitute Air Force One.
Sen. Ron Wyden opened this line, characterizing the subpoenas — issued, he said, within hours of an eight-hour meeting at the White House involving FBI Director Kash Patel — as “a flagrant attack on journalists in the First Amendment.” Clayton would not discuss specifics of an ongoing investigation but said the subpoenas followed required procedures, including a “consultative exercise with the career prosecutors” in his office, and that he is “absolutely committed to and respect[s] our First Amendment.”
Sen. Michael Bennet pressed further on process, asking whether anyone in the Southern District had consulted with the White House or Main Justice in Washington before the subpoenas were issued. Clayton confirmed that department protocols “require consultation with the Department of Justice in Washington, and we followed the protocols,” but would not say whether anyone suggested issuing the subpoenas in response to the Air Force One reporting specifically.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand noted that serving subpoenas at reporters’ homes, rather than their places of business, is unusually aggressive, and questioned the apparent urgency given that the aircraft-security reporting was months old. Clayton repeated that the timing depended on “facts and circumstances of the investigation,” including possible destruction of evidence, and said the decision was made collectively rather than unilaterally, but declined to explain the home service or urgency in more detail. He said the concept of using the “least intrusive means possible” was “front of mind” for him throughout.
Jeffrey Epstein Investigation Materials
Sen. Martin Heinrich raised the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, including the department’s 2019 directive pausing a related New Mexico state investigation and its refusal to share unredacted evidence with the New Mexico attorney general despite what Heinrich said were federal and state disclosure requirements tied to Epstein’s Zorro Ranch property in that state. Clayton said his office had spoken with the New Mexico attorney general’s office to seek an “accommodation” consistent with an existing court protective order governing the redactions. Heinrich also entered into the record a letter from the New Mexico attorney general to the Justice Department.
Heinrich further asked about a January 2026 release of Epstein-related grand jury material that the Justice Department attributed to “technical or human error,” which reportedly exposed victims’ email addresses and photographs. Clayton, who had personally certified that unsealed material from the Southern District did not disclose victims’ personal information, confirmed he had certified the subset of documents originating from his own district, and said responsibility for the broader release rested with the Department of Justice more generally. Asked directly who takes responsibility — Heinrich invoked Harry Truman’s “the buck stops here” desk sign — Clayton said: “For the Southern District documents, it was me.”
Heinrich separately asked whether Clayton believed individuals convicted of violent crimes during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol had been “pursued inappropriately,” in reference to remarks Clayton previously made about a presidential fund for people affected by “weaponization” of the justice system. Clayton said any physical violence against law enforcement is “completely objectionable” and clarified he had not been referring to that specific fund, but stood by his general view that people “inappropriately and intentionally subject to prosecution” should have recourse.
The Juan Orlando Hernandez Pardon
Sen. Jack Reed and Sen. Jon Ossoff both questioned Clayton about President Trump’s November 28, 2025, pardon of Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras, whom Clayton’s own office had prosecuted and convicted for narco-trafficking and firearms charges tied to partnerships with major cartels. Clayton confirmed the conviction but declined to discuss whether he was consulted on the pardon or aware of any quid pro quo, citing the president’s constitutionally “unreviewable and absolute” pardon power. Reed contrasted the pardon with the administration’s rhetoric on fighting drug trafficking, including U.S. strikes that Reed said killed more than 200 people in the Caribbean and Pacific described as drug traffickers. Ossoff separately walked Clayton through a yes-or-no confirmation that the president had indeed pardoned a convicted narco-trafficker, which Clayton ultimately confirmed.
China, Chips, and Speaking Truth to Power
Reed also raised comments from Indo-Pacific Command’s Admiral Samuel Paparo warning that allowing China access to advanced semiconductors could eventually endanger American service members, in the context of a Trump administration policy shift — after a call between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping — allowing sales of advanced H200 chips to China. Reed noted that Clayton’s own office had prosecuted people for illegally diverting similarly sanctioned chips to China. Clayton said he was not familiar with the specific H200 policy decision but affirmed his office’s prosecutions were based on the chips being illegal to divert and a Commerce Department priority.
Reed then raised the case of Lieutenant General Jeffrey Kruse of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who Reed said was fired after his assessment concluded that the U.S. strike codenamed Operation Midnight Hammer had not fully destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities — an assessment Reed said has proven accurate given the ongoing conflict with Iran. Reed asked whether Clayton would be prepared to similarly stand up to the president. Clayton called it a hypothetical but said he has “given people my views in the appropriate form, in the appropriate way” throughout his career and is “completely comfortable” continuing to do so.
Artificial Intelligence, Data, and Fourth Amendment Concerns
Sen. Mike Rounds used his second round of questioning to focus on artificial intelligence, describing it as simultaneously a tool the intelligence community must adopt and a threat being weaponized by adversaries through misinformation and deepfakes. He pressed Clayton on how to balance the IC’s need to collect and analyze larger volumes of data — including with AI tools — against Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights and concerns about domestic surveillance, particularly in the context of Section 702 and FISA authorities. Clayton agreed AI would “greatly amplify” both collection capability and the corresponding need for oversight and controls, framing the challenge as delivering strong intelligence products without violating constitutional protections.
Sen. Jerry Moran separately asked Clayton how the private sector’s data-analysis capabilities could be leveraged by the intelligence community; Clayton pointed to the speed of modern data-linkage tools, saying work that once took “weeks and months” analyzing potential espionage connections can now take hours.
Foreign Intelligence Sharing: Five Eyes, Ukraine, and Allies
Moran asked Clayton how he views intelligence-sharing relationships with allied nations beyond the Five Eyes alliance (the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), given reports of allies withholding intelligence or the U.S. suspending sharing arrangements. Clayton said he could answer more fully once confirmed but affirmed the historic value of the Five Eyes relationship and said bilateral sharing arrangements should be continuously assessed.
Moran also cited Clayton’s written answer committing to arm Ukraine with intelligence on Russian plans “to the extent directed by the president,” and asked Clayton to commit to briefing the committee on the rationale for any future suspension of Ukraine intelligence-sharing before it becomes public. Clayton said he expects “frequent and substantive dialogue” on shifting intelligence priorities but said he has no current expectation that Ukraine-related sharing priorities are changing.
Counterintelligence: FBI vs. the National Counterintelligence and Security Center
Moran, who chairs the appropriations subcommittee funding the FBI, asked Clayton to characterize the respective counterintelligence roles of the FBI and the ODNI’s National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC), which is officially designated the head of U.S. government counterintelligence activities. Clayton said his direct counterintelligence experience has been “mostly directly with the FBI and Homeland Security,” with less direct engagement with the NCSC, and called the underlying threat “real” — floating the idea of seeking additional counterintelligence resources if confirmed.
Insider Threats and Security Clearances
Sen. Ted Budd asked Clayton, in his prospective role as the government’s executive agent for security, how he plans to approach the security clearance process and mitigate insider threats, referencing past leak cases including Edward Snowden. Clayton said both classification oversight and security oversight processes are “in need of a refresh to be more effective,” based on what he said he had heard from people with more direct experience in the area.
COVID-19 Origins Declassification
Sen. Todd Young noted he authored a requirement in the most recent Intelligence Authorization Act requiring the ODNI to review and release intelligence related to China’s efforts to cover up the COVID-19 pandemic’s origins and interfere with the international response. He asked Clayton to commit to completing that review “as soon as possible” and releasing all appropriate intelligence. Clayton initially resisted giving a yes-or-no answer, saying there is “a whole lot more to learn” about COVID, but after Young pressed him on the specific legal qualifiers already written into law, Clayton said: “I’ll take it. Yes.”
Digital Assets and Anti-Money Laundering
In a closing exchange, Vice Chairman Warner connected Clayton’s SEC and prosecutorial background to ongoing congressional work on digital asset legislation, asking Clayton to confirm that drug traffickers frequently use digital assets to move money and that new digital-asset rules should not create loopholes enabling self-dealing or additional avenues for abuse. Clayton agreed that anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer standards across financial services are “essential to national security.”
Closing
Cotton closed the hearing by thanking Clayton for his testimony, noting that written questions for the record were due from committee members that day at 5:30 p.m., and that Clayton would be expected to respond by 5:30 p.m. the following Friday. Cotton reiterated his intention to convene a committee business meeting early the following week to vote on Clayton’s nomination and report it to the full Senate.
Source
“Senate Select Intelligence Committee Hearing Nomination for the Honorable Walter ‘Jay’ Clayton III to Be Director of National Intelligence.” Political Transcript Wire, 15 July 2026. ProQuest U.S. Newsstream, VIQ Media Transcription, Inc., https://www.proquest.com/usnews/wire-feeds/senate-select-intelligence-committee-hearing/docview/3364484594/