As Midterms Approach, Specter of Transcribed Interviews Rises for Non-Governmental Actors

As the 2026 midterm elections approach, companies and organizations are wise to assess how a change in control of one or both chambers of Congress could impact their exposure to congressional oversight. If Democrats secure committee gavels, private parties should anticipate a flurry of document subpoenas and high-profile oversight hearings. 

But there is another key oversight tool that Congress is likely to deploy that is receiving less attention: the transcribed interview, commonly referred to on Capitol Hill as a “TI.”

Historically, congressional investigators typically pursue transcribed interviews with current or former federal officials. They’ve been used to probe events like the 2012 Benghazi embassy attack and cultural issues like antisemitism on college campuses. 

As in the Yale example, in recent years, committees have increasingly sought TIs of non-governmental actors, including executives, government contractors, consultants and researchers, who may have information relevant to a congressional investigation. In short, any organization that expects to receive increased oversight scrutiny in the next Congress, regardless of whichever party controls the chambers, should prepare to navigate transcribed interview requests and the unique legal and reputational risks they pose.

In a transcribed interview, an individual agrees to answer a congressional committee’s questions on the record. The interview takes place behind closed doors with no media or public access permitted. The contents of the interview are memorialized by a court reporter.

As a formal matter, transcribed interviews are voluntary. But the practical reality is more complicated. TI requests almost always come from committee chairs conducting high-priority investigations, meaning, they come with an implicit understanding that the committee may seek to compel the witness to testify if they do not agree to do so voluntarily. Witnesses generally are not sworn in during a TI, but congressional investigators routinely instruct parties that they are legally required to provide truthful statements in the interview under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. 

In certain respects, a transcribed interview resembles a civil deposition but with several important differences. For instance, no formal rules of civil procedure govern a TI. No rules of evidence limit how committees may use a TI record. No protective order is readily available. And no third-party judge is assigned to adjudicate any challenge lodged.

How a transcribed interview typically unfolds

Transcribed interview practices vary across committees, but TIs generally follow a recognizable pattern:

• A TI is usually led by committee investigative staff rather than members of Congress. However, members may attend and ask questions of a witness directly.
• The length of a TI is not fixed by rule. Some TIs last a few hours. Others have spanned multiple days.
• Majority and minority sides alternate questioning in rounds that can last approximately one hour per side, far longer than the five-minute periods members traditionally have in public hearings.
• Committee staff may enter exhibits into the record and question the witness about those documents.
• A court reporter typically prepares an interview transcript, which is made available to the witness to review and submit any errata. In recent years, some TIs have also been videotaped.
• Committees may release parts or all of a TI transcript at their discretion. Excerpts may be quoted in committee staff reports or oversight letters and by members in interviews, speeches or hearings. 

Risk

Congressional Testimony Part I: Get on the Bicycle

by Dan Small and Christopher Armstrong

February 6, 2026

The first of three pillars: intensive preparation through uninterrupted dry runs, breaking down answers and doing it again until you are ready

Read moreDetails

Why Congress pursues transcribed interviews

Several core features of transcribed interviews regularly drive congressional investigators to pursue this oversight tool:

Transcribed interviews are powerful fact-finding proceedings. Public hearings serve important legislative and oversight functions, but they are not always well-suited for sustained fact development. A TI, by contrast, gives committee investigators more time and flexibility to question a witness, move deliberately through exhibits, secure extended testimony and build an investigative record.

Further, these interviews are flexible. Committees can issue deposition subpoenas to compel witness testimony behind closed doors, but doing so usually requires certain procedural steps. TIs can offer committees more flexibility without waiving their ability to compel a witness to testify.

TI requests can also spur broader cooperation. Committees may seek TIs when they believe a party has not adequately cooperated in other aspects of an investigation. For example, if a committee believes an organization’s document productions are insufficient, they may pursue TIs of organization officials to probe the entity’s document review processes or internal compliance operation.

Recent trends in transcribed interviews

Transcribed interviews are not new tools for Congress, but the use of TIs has evolved in ways that present increased risks for private parties:

• Private parties are in scope. As Congress has increasingly directed its oversight scrutiny toward the private sector, it has called on private parties to sit for transcribed interviews. For example, during the last Congress, one House subcommittee announced it had conducted nearly two dozen TIs of non-federal officials. If an organization expects congressional scrutiny, it should expect to navigate potential TI requests.
• Committees are moving to transcribed interviews quickly. Committees have requested TIs early in an investigation, sometimes concurrently with document or information requests. In these cases, committees may insist on holding TIs before all or even most responsive documents are produced. Parties should not assume committees will wait to schedule an interview until foundational fact-finding occurs.
• A transcribed interview request may signal a prelude to a hearing, not a substitute for one. Committees have used TIs as a preliminary step in a larger congressional investigation lifecycle. Importantly, recent trends suggest committees may expect a witness who sits for a TI to later testify at a public hearing on the same topics.
• Video has changed the risk profile. Historically, the only formal record of a transcribed interview was a written transcript. That is no longer always the case. Committees have started to video record some TIs, and committees’ communications teams have clipped, packaged and posted select video exchanges online.
• Transcribed interviews have led to criminal referrals. In recent years, committees have publicly referred witnesses to the DOJ for prosecution when they believe statements made in transcribed interviews were false. Regardless of whether prosecution is likely, a public criminal referral can pose significant reputational consequences and prolong congressional scrutiny.

Key considerations for navigating a transcribed interview request

If a party receives a transcribed interview request or expects to there are a variety of strategic decisions to make in short order. Keep the following considerations in mind:

• Treat the request as investigative, not informational. Sitting for a transcribed interview is not the same as providing a congressional briefing. The committee is seeking specific information to build a factual record for a broader investigation.
• Engage committee staff strategically. Although transcribed interviews are governed by few formal rules, committees may be willing to negotiate certain terms and parameters. 
• Plan for a public release. While a transcribed interview occurs behind closed doors, the contents of the interview rarely remain entirely private. And when a TI record becomes public, it often sets off fresh media and political scrutiny. An organization’s legal, communications, compliance and government affairs teams should plan for this possibility in advance and establish a coordinated response strategy before any release occurs.
• Invest in preparation. Parties who agree to sit for a transcribed interview should commit to preparing, as they would for a deposition or similar legal proceeding. This is especially true given the rapid pace at which some committees have moved from request to interview in recent years. Congressional investigations counsel can help parties identify key risks, develop a focused preparation plan and navigate the TI process effectively.  

This was adapted with permission.