Inside the FBI’s Surveillance of Tennessee Senators: Separating Fact from Politics

In 2023, the Federal Bureau of Investigation obtained phone metadata for multiple Republican lawmakers, including both of Tennessee’s U.S. senators, as part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The records, disclosed publicly this month through the office of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa), confirm that Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty were among those whose call information—dates, times, and phone numbers—was analyzed.

While the revelation has prompted sharp political reaction, the details point to something more technical than the term “surveillance” might suggest. The subpoenas covered non-content data only, were authorized through a federal grand jury, and stemmed from a still-opaque decision-making process within a legally recognized investigation.

This article explains what actually occurred, what did not, and how the law treats this kind of investigative step.

The Core Facts: What Happened

The Associated Press first reported that the FBI conducted a “preliminary toll analysis” in September 2023, several months before the Jan. 6 investigation was shut down. The step allowed investigators to see basic call patterns among a group of Republican lawmakers who had been in contact during the week of Jan. 6, 2021, when rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol.

A toll analysis does not capture call content or recordings. It simply maps who communicated with whom and when—a method often used to establish timelines or identify networks of contact during major investigations.

The document listing the lawmakers was dated Sept. 27, 2023, and was reportedly authorized by two supervisory FBI agents and approved by a federal grand jury.

Lawmakers Listed in the Document

• Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R–Tennessee)
• Sen. Bill Hagerty (R–Tennessee)
• Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–South Carolina)
• Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Missouri)
• Sen. Dan Sullivan (R–Alaska)
• Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R–Alabama)
• Sen. Ron Johnson (R–Wisconsin)
• Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyoming)
• Rep. Mike Kelly (R–Pennsylvania)

According to the AP, the data encompassed “several days during the week of Jan. 6” and did not include audio or message content.

The inquiry was one of several strands within Smith’s broader Jan. 6 probe. When Donald Trump returned to office following the 2024 election, the Department of Justice closed the investigation under its long-standing policy barring prosecution of a sitting president.

What Did Not Occur

Much of the public debate around this disclosure has conflated metadata analysis with direct surveillance. Based on all available information:

• No wiretaps or content interception occurred. The FBI did not listen to calls, read texts, or monitor communications in real time. The subpoenas obtained only call-detail records, not the actual content of those calls.
• No evidence of a White House order. There is currently no public documentation linking the Biden administration or political officials to the decision to include these lawmakers. The subpoenas appear to have been issued by prosecutors operating under the Special Counsel’s independent authority, subject to grand jury oversight.
• No stated rationale for inclusion. The released FBI document does not explain how the specific names were identified or whether the analysis produced useful leads.

In short, the evidence points to a narrow, data-focused inquiry, not a broad or continuous monitoring program.

The Legal Framework

Toll Analysis and Metadata

A “toll analysis” is the FBI’s term for examining call-detail records (CDRs)—information carriers maintain for billing and technical purposes. Under the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2703), federal prosecutors may compel non-content records with a grand jury subpoena or court order.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that such data, while private, are not protected in the same way as communication content. In Smith v. Maryland (1979), the Court ruled that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in numbers dialed, since those are voluntarily shared with phone companies—a doctrine often referred to as the third-party doctrine.

That precedent allows law enforcement to access call metadata without a full search warrant. It does not authorize wiretaps or the collection of call recordings, which require higher-level approval under Title III of the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.

Limits and Evolving Standards

In 2018, the Court narrowed the third-party doctrine in Carpenter v. United States, holding that police generally need a warrant to obtain historical cell-site location data. Carpenter applied to detailed tracking information, not to standard call logs.

The AP reporting makes clear that the FBI subpoenas in question involved basic toll data—time, duration, and numbers—rather than location or content.

Bottom Line on Legality

Based on the information publicly available, the FBI’s subpoenas appear legally authorized under existing law and policy. The unresolved question is judgment—whether investigators were justified in including sitting senators within that scope and whether the inquiry was properly limited to its stated purpose.

Why This Matters in Tennessee

Tennessee’s Representation Implicated

Both members of the state’s U.S. Senate delegation were named in the document. That makes this not just a national issue but a direct matter of oversight for Tennessee’s elected officials.

Both Blackburn and Hagerty have criticized the action, describing it as an unacceptable overreach of federal power. Their reactions raise institutional questions: How will this affect their future oversight of the Justice Department and FBI? Will it shape Tennessee’s voice in congressional debates over surveillance powers or reform of investigative standards?

Public Trust in Institutions

The disclosure comes amid a period of intense polarization over law enforcement’s independence. For Tennessee constituents, the larger question is whether federal investigative tools can be trusted to operate without political bias—and whether elected officials will demand accountability without undermining those tools entirely.

This is where institutional integrity becomes the real story: the ability to separate lawful procedure from political narrative, and to strengthen safeguards so that neither side of the aisle doubts the fairness of the process.

Jack Smith and the Question of Motive

Jack Smith, who led the special counsel investigation, has become a polarizing figure. A career prosecutor, he previously headed the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, oversaw public corruption cases, and later prosecuted war crimes in The Hague.

He was appointed special counsel in 2022 by Attorney General Merrick Garland to lead investigations into both Jan. 6 and Trump’s handling of classified documents. His mandate was to operate independently of the administration.

Critics—including some of the lawmakers whose records were reviewed—have alleged political bias. Supporters point out that Smith has no known party affiliation and has a long history of apolitical prosecutorial work.

In August 2025, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel opened a Hatch Act investigation into whether Smith’s timing or decisions improperly influenced the 2024 election. That review remains ongoing and, as of this writing, has produced no findings of wrongdoing.

Unanswered Questions

Several key details remain unknown:

• What specific predicate evidence led investigators to request call records for sitting senators?
• Were the subpoenas narrowly tailored, or did they collect more data than necessary?
• Did the analysis yield actionable leads or was it a routine mapping exercise that turned up little?
• How will future DOJ policies handle similar situations involving members of Congress, given the constitutional sensitivities?

Until more documentation is released through oversight or declassification, those questions will remain open.

Institutional Integrity: The Larger Lesson

The disclosure of these subpoenas underscores the tension between law enforcement independence and public accountability.

Investigations into public officials are inherently political because they involve politics by definition. The challenge for institutions—and for the public evaluating them—is distinguishing between political consequence and political motive.

In this case: The subpoenas appear to have followed lawful process. The targets included sitting senators, which made them inherently controversial. The motivation for selecting those names remains unclear.

The path forward lies not in reflexive outrage but in transparency: releasing the authorizing documentation, clarifying the rationale, and reaffirming standards for how far investigators can go when the subjects are elected officials.

What Tennesseans Should Watch Next

1. Internal DOJ Review – FBI leadership has indicated that the matter is under internal examination. Any official findings on whether procedure was properly followed will be key.
2. Congressional Oversight – Expect hearings and possible legislation tightening standards for subpoenaing lawmakers’ records.
3. Ethics Investigation Outcome – The OSC’s Hatch Act review of Jack Smith could clarify whether political considerations played any role in his decision-making.
4. Public Access to Primary Documents – If redacted versions of the subpoenas or supporting affidavits are released, they will offer the clearest picture yet of intent and scope.

Conclusion

The revelation that both Tennessee senators’ phone metadata were reviewed by federal investigators is a serious institutional event, not merely another partisan flashpoint.

At its core, this story is about the balance between investigative necessity and political neutrality—a test that repeats across administrations, regardless of party.

Whether the FBI’s actions were justified will ultimately depend on facts that have yet to emerge. But what’s already clear is that maintaining public confidence in federal institutions requires candor about how these powers are used—and restraint in how political actors exploit them.