JP Cooney, the top deputy to former special counsel Jack Smith during the Biden-era election probe, advocated repealing the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause, according to Fox News Politics — a position that triggered a heated clash with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Capitol Hill.
The Speech or Debate Clause, found in Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, shields members of Congress from being questioned or prosecuted for legislative acts. It has stood for more than two centuries as one of the structural protections separating the legislative branch from executive and judicial pressure. Cooney, per Fox News Politics, argued it should go.
Grassley — the Iowa Republican who has spent years pressing for transparency from the Justice Department and FBI — pushed back hard during the exchange, according to the outlet's account.
Who Is JP Cooney?
Cooney served as principal deputy to Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two federal indictments against President Donald Trump: one in Florida over classified documents and one in Washington, D.C., over the 2020 election. Both cases collapsed after Trump's 2024 victory and Smith's subsequent withdrawal.
Cooney's role put him near the center of what congressional Republicans have described as a weaponized prosecution aimed at the man who is now the 47th president. That history is why his comments on the Speech or Debate Clause are drawing attention — and why a constitutional originalist like Grassley reacted the way he did.
Cooney's argument, as characterized by the outlet, is that the clause has been stretched to shield lawmakers from accountability. Critics of that position say it would hand the executive branch — the same branch that ran the Smith probe — the power to haul legislators before prosecutors over their official acts.
The Bigger Picture
This fight lands in the middle of a broader reckoning over the federal government's conduct during the Biden years. Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee and the new administration's Justice Department have been examining the Smith investigation's methods, including its use of grand jury subpoenas and its contacts with private attorneys representing witnesses.
Whether Cooney's position reflects a formal DOJ proposal or a personal view aired in a hearing is not yet known. Fox News Politics did not report that any member of Congress has introduced legislation to repeal the clause, and no bill language has surfaced.
Adding to the atmosphere: coverage from End Times Headline News on October 2, 2026, also noted ongoing tensions between the executive branch and federal courts. Separately, RedState reported that a Miami-based federal judge, David Leibowitz — a Biden appointee — ruled Thursday that Congress lacked constitutional authority to criminalize noncitizen voting in federal elections, dismissing a case against a Jamaican national accused of voting in 2020. That ruling, like the Cooney remarks, speaks to the same structural question: who gets to decide how far Congress's power reaches.
Why It Matters for Everyday Americans
The Speech or Debate Clause is not a perk for politicians. It exists so that a member of Congress can vote against a president's agenda — or investigate a federal agency — without fearing retaliation from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. If that protection were repealed or narrowed, the precedent would apply to every future administration, not just the current one.
Grassley, first elected to the Senate in 1980, has long framed himself as a defender of the institution even when it means defending colleagues he disagrees with. He has repeatedly clashed with the Justice Department over what he calls stonewalling on records and whistleblower disclosures.
The White House has not publicly commented on Cooney's remarks. The Justice Department also has not issued a statement, and it is not yet known whether Cooney remains in federal service or has returned to private practice.
Our Take
Let's be blunt about what just happened. The man who helped run the most aggressive federal prosecution of a sitting president's political opponent sat on Capitol Hill and floated repealing a clause that protects lawmakers from exactly that kind of pressure. That is not a thought experiment. That is a tell.
If Cooney had his way, a future attorney general could subpoena a senator over a floor speech, indict a congressman over a committee hearing, and call it oversight. The same apparatus that raided Mar-a-Lago and surveilled Trump associates would have a straight line into the legislative branch — the one body that can defund it, subpoena it, and fire its leadership.
And notice who stood in the way: Chuck Grassley, an 86-year-old Republican from Iowa who remembers why the Founders wrote the clause in the first place. The Senate needs more of that, not less.
The question for patriots is simple. Do you want your congressman answering to federal prosecutors, or to you? Because that's the choice Cooney just handed the country — and we should take him at his word.
