Rep. Eric Swalwell spent years demanding the release of every document tied to Donald Trump, the Mueller report, the Ukraine transcripts, the Epstein files. Now the California Democrat is threatening to sue the FBI director if the bureau hands over classified files on Chinese influence operations that may include materials about his own relationship with a suspected Chinese intelligence operative.
The reversal, reported by Just the News, landed as the Trump White House prepared to release a trove of files spanning more than a decade of Chinese infiltration into American politics and elections. Swalwell's attorneys fired off a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel warning of "significant legal liability" if the bureau complied.
The contrast between Swalwell's past rhetoric and his current posture is worth examining in detail, because the congressman built much of his public profile on the principle that no person in power should be shielded from disclosure.
In March 2019, Swalwell declared that the Mueller report must be released in full and without delay. His statement left no room for ambiguity:
"Congress and the American public must see every single word of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report. And we should see it at the same time as President Trump, a subject of the investigation, sees it. Nothing less than the rule of law in our country is on the line. Congress must also hear from Mueller himself to make sure that we have received the whole, unvarnished truth. No President is above the law."
Six months later, in September 2019, Swalwell appeared on Fox News and accused the Trump White House of "an ongoing cover-up" during the Ukraine impeachment saga. He said the transcripts with the Ukrainian president had been "moved into a top secret covert action system" and called the concealment "consciousness of guilt."
Swalwell also spent considerable effort publicizing the FBI's Russia collusion investigation. He talked openly with liberal talk show host Rachel Maddow about the probe into former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. On his own congressional website, Swalwell highlighted Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow to deliver a speech, noting that "Page criticized American foreign policy as being hypocritical", something, as Just the News pointed out, that Bill Clinton also did when he gave a paid speech in Russia.
Special Counsel John Durham ultimately concluded there was no basis for the FBI to even open the Russia collusion probe or target Page with a secret FISA warrant. Multiple investigations found significant evidence of wrongdoing inside the FBI's handling of the case, including the false submission of a court filing. Page, a former intelligence officer who had assisted the CIA as a private citizen, saw his name dragged through years of public suspicion, suspicion that Swalwell helped amplify.
That pattern of Democratic-aligned legal and political efforts against Trump and his associates forms the backdrop against which Swalwell's current reversal stands out so sharply.
More recently, Swalwell turned his transparency crusade toward the Jeffrey Epstein files. At a congressional hearing late last year, he pressed Patel directly on why the documents had not been released.
"If the president is not implicated, then why not release everything?"
Swalwell went further. He noted that every member of the House Judiciary Committee, Republican and Democrat alike, had voted to release the Epstein documents. He said the files were needed "so that we could stand up for victims and to make sure that we know the names of the people who enabled Jeffrey Epstein." He even suggested contempt charges and reduced DOJ funding for violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
In a separate effort, Swalwell and other Democrats sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi demanding the release of the entirety of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on Trump stemming from the Mar-a-Lago raid.
The pattern was consistent: release everything, hide nothing, let the public judge. Swalwell positioned himself as a man who believed sunlight was the best disinfectant, right up until the light turned toward him.
The Chinese intelligence files at issue may include materials from an FBI counterintelligence probe into Swalwell's relationship with Christine Fang, a Chinese national also known as "Fang Fang." A 2020 Axios report, cited by Just the News, described Fang as a suspected operative believed to be working with China's Ministry of State Security who conducted an extensive political influence operation in the Bay Area and elsewhere between 2011 and 2015 on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party.
Fang reportedly helped Swalwell with fundraising and placed an intern in his congressional office during the 2014 campaign cycle. Federal agents carrying out a counterintelligence investigation into Fang alerted Swalwell to their concerns in 2015 and provided him with a defensive briefing. Fang left the United States that summer.
The House Ethics Committee opened an investigation into Swalwell in April 2021, examining whether he "may have violated House Rules, laws, or other standards of conduct in connection with your interactions with Ms. Christine Fang." In May 2023, the committee sent a closure letter stating it would "take no further action in this matter."
Swalwell's attorneys, Norm Eisen and Sean Hecker, leaned on that outcome in their letter to Patel. They wrote that "the Congressman has never been accused of wrongdoing in that matter" and called the potential release "a transparent attempt to smear him and undermine his campaign for Governor of California." They added a blunt warning: "Your actions threaten to expose you, others at the FBI, and the FBI itself to significant legal liability."
Swalwell is now running for governor of California, a race where Democrats already face growing concern about their prospects. On X, the congressman framed the file release as political retaliation: "The reason Trump is so desperately trying to stop me is not because I'm running for Governor of California, but because now I'm the favorite."
The New York Post editorial board captured the contradiction last week. "Eric Swalwell wants the Jeffrey Epstein files released, just not the Fang Fang files," the board wrote, adding: "Now, all of a sudden, Swalwell doesn't like the idea of the FBI releasing files."
The Post noted the obvious reason: "This time, the files involve documents about Christine Fang, or Fang Fang, an alleged Chinese spy who reportedly had a relationship with Swalwell."
Just the News reported that Swalwell's office and Eisen did not immediately respond on Sunday to a request for comment. The silence is notable for a congressman who has spent years insisting that silence itself is evidence of wrongdoing, what he once called "consciousness of guilt" when it was the Trump White House withholding records.
It is worth pausing on the specifics of what Swalwell demanded versus what he now opposes. He wanted every word of the Mueller report. He wanted the Ukraine transcripts. He wanted the Epstein files. He wanted the Jack Smith report. He accused anyone who resisted disclosure of covering up misconduct. He suggested funding cuts and contempt charges for agencies that dragged their feet.
Now his lawyers are threatening to sue the FBI director for releasing files about Chinese Communist Party influence operations that touched his own office. The principle Swalwell articulated, "If the president is not implicated, then why not release everything?", apparently does not apply when the person potentially implicated is Eric Swalwell.
The broader question here goes beyond one congressman's inconsistency. The Trump White House is preparing to release files documenting more than a decade of Chinese infiltration into American politics. That is a matter of genuine national security interest. The public has a right to understand how foreign intelligence services have targeted elected officials and political campaigns, and whether those officials responded appropriately when warned.
Swalwell's attorneys say he was never accused of wrongdoing. The House Ethics Committee closed its inquiry without action. Those facts are part of the record and deserve acknowledgment. But they do not explain why a congressman who built his brand on radical transparency now wants the FBI to keep these particular files locked away.
The Democratic establishment's broader posture toward accountability has always been selective. Disclosure is a weapon when aimed at political opponents and a threat when aimed inward. Swalwell's record makes that dynamic unusually easy to document, because he left such a long trail of demands for the very thing he now opposes.
Meanwhile, the narrow margins in the House mean that every member's conduct and credibility carry outsized weight. Leadership on both sides is navigating a chamber where individual members matter more than usual, and Swalwell's fight to suppress these files will not go unnoticed by colleagues or voters.
The congressman who once told the country that "no President is above the law" and demanded the public see "the whole, unvarnished truth" now wants a federal court to stop the truth from coming out, because this time, the file has his name in it.
Transparency, it turns out, is only a principle when it costs someone else.
