“As House Judiciary Committee chairman, Jordan committed to investigating the alleged 'weaponization' of the federal government, establishing and chairing the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government to probe the FBI, DOJ, and other federal agencies.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Independently verified. The promise had three concrete deliverables: (1) establish a Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, (2) chair it, and (3) use it to investigate the FBI, DOJ, and other federal agencies. All three occurred. H.Res.12 (118th Congress), adopted January 10, 2023, by its own text 'hereby established for the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress a select investigative subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary called the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government' - confirmed live at govinfo.gov (fetched directly). Jim Jordan chaired the subcommittee while simultaneously chairing the full Judiciary Committee, serving as Chair from January 10, 2023 until the subcommittee dissolved on January 3, 2025 (confirmed via Wikipedia, fetched directly). The subcommittee held hearings and issued subpoenas targeting federal agencies over its two-year run. This is not a merely-led-but-unfulfilled effort (which would be CHAMPIONED); the promised body was actually created, chaired by the promise-maker, and operated as promised - an essentially 100% kept promise. Applying the same nonpartisan standard: a politician of any party who promised to stand up and chair an investigative subcommittee and then did exactly that for a full Congress would also earn FULL. Both cited sources are real, live, and accurately quoted; the third source is a duplicate (introduced vs engrossed version of the same resolution).
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.