An FBI pay-to-play inquiry reached Susan Collins—then the public-corruption unit was dismantled

Navatek chief executive Martin Kao told federal agents that his company obtained tens of millions of dollars in military research contracts by funding influential politicians. In 2024, after his conviction for illegal campaign contributions, FBI agents sought approval for a wider bribery investigation that included Sen. Susan Collins and contemplated undercover work. It was still preliminary when the second Trump administration dismantled specialized public-corruption teams; the inquiry is now dead.

ProPublica’s strongest evidence concerns the mechanism. Collins had helped Navatek obtain a Navy research contract in Maine. At a 2019 meeting, the head of a Collins super PAC asked company executives for $500,000. Kao later sent $150,000 through a shell company, despite the prohibition on government contractors donating. An internal email said Collins had committed to seeking $32 million in naval contracts. Seven days after the super PAC cashed the check, a fundraiser asked for Kao’s number because Collins wanted to thank him.

Kao’s account requires caution: he is a convicted felon who was cooperating in hope of a shorter sentence. But ProPublica reviewed thousands of pages of legal and corporate records, FBI material and emails, and says it corroborated much of his description. Documents show Navatek drafted highly specific funding language, cultivated appropriators in multiple states and then relied on congressional offices to press the Navy. Former employees said much of the research never produced equipment the military wanted.

Collins’ office denies bribery and describes Kao’s allegations as outlandish. The FBI says an earlier inquiry found nothing implicating her or her campaign, but did not answer questions about the separate 2024 investigation. No one in Collins’ operation was charged.

The unresolved point is institutional: a credible allegation, supported by suggestive records, required investigators to prove an explicit exchange under narrow Supreme Court bribery standards. The investigative capacity disappeared before they could try. That leaves neither an exoneration of the new evidence nor a completed case—only a detailed map of how appropriations, lobbying and campaign finance can be coordinated without a final legal judgment.