Rep. Eric Swalwell sent a cease-and-desist letter to FBI Director Kash Patel on Monday, threatening legal action if the bureau releases files about his alleged relationship with Christine Fang, a woman who reportedly worked with Communist China's Ministry of State Security. By Tuesday, the California Democrat was on television comparing the potential disclosure to the worst abuses of J. Edgar Hoover.
The congressman's aggressive posture, lawyering up, issuing threats, and racing to cable news, raises an obvious question: If the files contain nothing damaging, why fight so hard to keep them sealed?
NBC News first reported the cease-and-desist letter, which Swalwell directed at Patel in an effort to block the release of files concerning his alleged affair with Fang. The specific contents of the letter have not been made public, and the legal basis Swalwell cited for the threat remains unclear.
Appearing on "The Briefing" with guest host Michael Steele, Swalwell framed the entire matter as ancient history and political retribution. He insisted the investigation wrapped up years ago and that he cooperated fully when the FBI came calling.
"The case is closed on this decade-old file during Barack Obama's presidency. I mean, that's how old this is and every finding was that when we were approached by the FBI, we helped them, we cooperated."
That claim, "every finding" cleared him, is Swalwell's own characterization. No independent review or official FBI statement in the public record confirms or denies it. What is confirmed is that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy removed Swalwell from the House Intelligence Committee on January 24, 2023, citing the congressman's reported relationship with Fang.
That removal was not a casual decision. The Intelligence Committee handles some of the most sensitive classified material in the federal government. McCarthy concluded that Swalwell's entanglement with a suspected agent of Beijing's Ministry of State Security made his continued access a risk. Swalwell has faced mounting questions about the saga ever since.
Swalwell did not stop at calling the potential release improper. He escalated to one of the most loaded comparisons in American law-enforcement history, relaying what he said his own lawyer told him that day.
"But as my lawyer, one of our lawyers told me today, and this really kind of stops you right in your tracks, he said, 'If they do this, it will be the greatest abuse of power by an FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover.'"
The comparison is worth examining on its own terms. Hoover ran illegal surveillance programs targeting civil-rights leaders, journalists, and political dissidents for decades. Releasing investigative files about a sitting congressman's documented contact with a suspected foreign intelligence operative is not remotely the same category of conduct. If anything, transparency about a lawmaker's foreign entanglements serves the public interest that Hoover spent his career undermining.
Swalwell went further, casting the potential disclosure as part of a broader authoritarian campaign. He accused the administration of trying to eliminate mail-in voting and "preventing women from being able to vote." Those claims, offered without evidence during the interview, had nothing to do with the Fang files. They read like an attempt to change the subject, to bury a specific, personal accountability question under a pile of generalized alarm.
Perhaps the most striking portion of Swalwell's television appearance was his direct warning to federal employees who might carry out the file release. He told Steele that the stakes were existential and that government workers had a duty to resist.
"We can lose these freedoms like that, Michael. And it's coming if enough of us, particularly those inside the building right now, who are being asked to do this dirty work, if they don't step up."
He then issued what amounted to a promise and a threat in the same breath. Swalwell has previously accused the administration of meddling in his political future over the Chinese spy controversy.
"And for those who are doing the dirty work, you will be in front of congressional committees in no time. And those that speak out, you will be protected."
A congressman who sat on the Intelligence Committee, and lost that seat because of a foreign-spy scandal, is now openly encouraging federal employees to defy the FBI director. That is a remarkable posture for a lawmaker who spent years positioning himself as a defender of institutional norms.
Swalwell's relationship with Christine Fang is not a matter of rumor. Fang reportedly worked with Communist China's Ministry of State Security, and her contacts with Swalwell were serious enough to trigger an FBI investigation and, eventually, his removal from one of the most sensitive committees in Congress.
The congressman has consistently tried to minimize the episode. He calls it a "decade-old file." He says the case is closed. He insists he cooperated. But cooperation with an investigation and exoneration by that investigation are two very different things. Swalwell conflates them routinely, and no independent source has confirmed his version of the findings.
Meanwhile, the political pressure on Swalwell extends well beyond Washington. A resurfaced 2013 photograph showing Swalwell with a senior Chinese diplomat has added another layer to the story of his contacts with Beijing-linked figures.
And the congressman's ambitions have not shrunk. He is now a candidate in California's governor's race, where rivals have already moved to exploit the Fang controversy. Tom Steyer has used a federal housing referral to challenge Swalwell's residency in that contest, adding to the pile of problems facing his candidacy.
The specific contents of the files Swalwell wants suppressed remain unknown. That is precisely the problem. The public does not know what the FBI learned about his relationship with a suspected Chinese intelligence operative. The public does not know whether "every finding" truly cleared him, as he claims, or whether the picture is more complicated.
Swalwell's answer to that uncertainty is not to welcome transparency. It is to threaten lawsuits, invoke Hoover, warn federal employees of congressional retribution, and pivot to unrelated accusations about voting rights. That is not the behavior of a man confident the record will vindicate him.
The broader context matters, too. California Democrats are already in disarray as a crowded governor's race threatens the party's two-decade grip on power. Swalwell's spy-file saga is not helping.
Voters have a right to know whether their elected officials have been compromised by foreign intelligence services. A cease-and-desist letter is not an answer. It is a dodge.
If the files really do clear Eric Swalwell, he should be the first person asking for their release, not the one hiring lawyers to stop it.
