The Federalist published a piece Tuesday arguing that no Republican — not even one with a reputation for bipartisanship and moderation — is immune from what it characterizes as the left’s use of government investigations as a political weapon. The article centers on Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and a ProPublica report suggesting her 2020 Senate campaign intersected with a Biden-era FBI investigation into allegations of pay-to-play and bribery.
According to The Federalist, ProPublica’s report linking Collins to the inquiry amounts to a “hit piece,” and the outlet’s central claim is that Collins’ bipartisan credentials did not shield her from becoming entangled in the investigation. Collins has long been viewed as one of the Senate’s more moderate members, known for weighing major nominations and bills carefully and for crossing party lines — a posture, The Federalist notes, that reflects representing a blue state.
Collins’ office pushed back forcefully on the characterization of the probe and on the suggestion of wrongdoing. Her spokeswoman, Annie Clark, said the FBI and Justice Department thoroughly investigated the matter during the Biden administration, that the campaign cooperated fully, produced all requested documents, and served as fact witnesses in official settings. Clark also pointed to the FBI’s own statement that any suggestion of wrongdoing by Collins or her staff is “totally false.”
The Federalist further cited a statement from Collins’ team asserting that the allegations at issue are seven years old, that there have never been any allegations of wrongdoing by the Collins for Senator campaign, and that the campaign was never the target of the FBI investigation.
A Disputed Framing of the Investigation
ProPublica’s report, as described by The Federalist, cast Collins and her allies as participants in a broader debacle and portrayed President Trump as a willing accomplice, claiming he “stacked the Department of Justice with his personal lawyers” and weakened specialized FBI and DOJ units that handle public corruption cases. The Federalist disputes that framing and describes ProPublica as a left-wing-funded outlet, pointing to its Pulitzer recognition for investigations into conservative Supreme Court justices and red-state abortion laws.
The Federalist also highlights what it calls a glaring context: the timing of the report amid Collins’ competitive reelection bid. It notes that one of the two named FBI agents who led the probe was recently accused of pursuing lawfare against Elon Musk, while the other was involved in the Biden Justice Department’s investigations of Trump. Those details, according to the outlet, underscore its argument that the machinery of government investigations has been turned against political opponents.
The Federalist frames the Collins episode as one data point in a longer pattern. It points to the Biden administration’s special counsel investigation led by Jack Smith, including the seizure of phone records belonging to Republican members of Congress as part of the Arctic Frost probe. It also cites Biden-era DOJ scrutiny of 2020 election protesters, pro-life activists and Christians, and parents who demonstrated against pandemic-era school policies and racial indoctrination at school board meetings.
The Broader Argument: Moderation Offers No Shelter
The core contention of the piece is that the left’s lawfare enterprise does not calibrate its targets based on ideology or temperament. Collins, in this telling, has never fit the mold of a conservative firebrand — she is described as taking a middle-of-the-road approach and carefully weighing her votes, far from anything resembling a MAGA loyalist. Yet that did not prevent the FBI, in the outlet’s view, from seemingly making her a target in an expansive investigation.
From The Federalist’s perspective, the lesson is straightforward: if a Republican official gets in the way of leftists’ pursuit of power, moderation will not protect them. The piece argues that any GOP figure — no matter how independent or bipartisan — can become the subject of the next fishing expedition.
Collins’ office has not suggested the investigation itself was improper in the way The Federalist characterizes it; rather, her team has emphasized cooperation and the FBI’s statement that suggestions of wrongdoing by Collins or her staff are false. ProPublica, for its part, has not responded publicly to The Federalist’s characterization in the source material provided.
The dispute reflects a broader and increasingly heated argument over the politicization of federal law enforcement — one in which each side views the other’s investigations as illegitimate. For conservatives, the Collins case is evidence that even the most accommodating Republicans can be swept up in inquiries they say are designed to damage them politically. For the outlet’s critics, the framing amounts to an effort to discredit legitimate reporting by casting any investigation touching a Republican as inherently partisan.
What remains undisputed in the source material is that Collins’ campaign cooperated with the FBI, that the FBI described suggestions of wrongdoing as “totally false,” and that the underlying allegations date back roughly seven years. The political fight over what those facts mean — and over whether the investigation should be understood as lawfare or as routine public corruption enforcement — is likely to continue as Collins seeks another term.
Source: thefederalist.com — https://thefederalist.com/2026/09/22/for-the-left-there-is-no-republican-too-moderate-to-target-with-lawfare/