Decades-old whispers of cocaine use are swirling around Maine’s Democratic Governor Janet Mills as Republican operatives dig for dirt ahead of a potential Senate showdown.
According to Fox News, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is pushing hard to unearth over 6,000 pages of federal investigation files from the early 1990s tied to allegations of drug use by Mills, while speculation mounts about her challenging Republican Senator Susan Collins in the 2026 Senate race, and a newly surfaced 1995 memo challenges her long-standing defense against the probe’s legitimacy.
Let’s rewind to the early 1990s, when Mills, then a district attorney in Maine, found herself under the microscope of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the DEA, and Maine’s own drug enforcement bureau after a suspect pointed fingers at her for alleged cocaine use. No charges were ever filed, and the investigation fizzled out. But the whispers didn’t.
Mills didn’t take the accusations lying down, claiming the probe was a political hit job fueled by her Democratic ties and her sharp criticism of the state’s drug enforcement tactics. She and two fellow district attorneys had called out the Bureau of Intergovernmental Drug Enforcement for padding arrest stats with minor offenders. Sounds like a classic case of stepping on the wrong toes.
Fast forward to December 1990, when a local TV station, WCSH-TV, reported Mills was under federal grand jury scrutiny for drug use, citing law enforcement sources. Mills fired back with a libel and slander lawsuit against the reporter and demanded a grand jury probe into alleged leaks from law enforcement. The lawsuit’s outcome? Lost to the sands of time—court records were tossed in 2015.
By 1991, Mills was still fighting to clear her name, but a Lewiston Sun-Journal piece noted a judge dismissed her efforts to quash the rumors. She told the Portland Press Herald that year, “Maine apparently has a secret police force at work that can ruin the reputation of any who opposes it.” A chilling claim, but is it paranoia or a glimpse of bureaucratic overreach?
In 1995, a memo from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility surfaced, addressed to the deputy attorney general, stating there was no misconduct by federal or state officials in the investigation of Mills. This directly undercuts her narrative of a politically driven witch hunt. If there’s no smoke, why does she keep fanning the flames?
Even Mills herself tried to get her hands on these files back in 1992 with her own Freedom of Information Act request to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). NARA brushed her off, claiming they were “too busy” to process it, per a report from the Ellsworth American. When asked if she’d release the docs if she got them, Mills dodged with, “I’d first have to see what was in it.”
Now, in April 2025, the NRSC has taken up the torch, filing their own FOIA request for the same 6,000 pages of case files. NARA initially agreed to review but then denied access to half the documents, citing grand jury secrecy exemptions. Another 3,000-plus pages? They’re saying it’ll take 11 years to process—talk about government efficiency.
The NRSC isn’t backing down, appealing NARA’s denial and arguing there’s a strong public interest in transparency, especially with Mills’ political future in question. If she’s got nothing to hide, why the stonewalling? The public deserves answers, not bureaucratic red tape.
Adding fuel to the fire, Fox News Digital recently confronted Mills in Washington, D.C., asking if “sniffing cocaine at work” is a “human right.” Her response? A blunt “What the f---?”—hardly the polished deflection you’d expect from a seasoned politician.
With Mills’ governorship term-limited in 2026, Democrats might see her as a viable contender against Senator Susan Collins in the upcoming Senate race. Mills herself hasn’t ruled it out, saying in April 2025, “things change week to week, month to month.” That’s a door left wide open for speculation—and scrutiny.
Let’s be clear: digging up old drug allegations smells like political hardball, but voters aren’t fools. If Mills steps into the Senate ring, her past—whether substantiated or not—will be fair game in a state that values straight talk over progressive platitudes. The question is whether this is a legitimate concern or a distraction from bigger policy debates.
At the end of the day, transparency should trump partisan gamesmanship. The NRSC’s push for these records, while clearly strategic, taps into a broader frustration with political elites dodging accountability. Maine deserves clarity, not decades-old shadows, as it eyes its future leaders.
