← Back to issue
PROPUBLICA

Ex-Navatek CEO Martin Kao told the FBI he traded campaign money for contract help from Graham, Clyburn and Wilson; ProPublica says Trump's FBI purge ended the probe

Political Guyentist · October 21, 20263 min read

PROPUBLICA

The agent who opened the case was fired in October 2025 by a letter accusing her of weaponizing the Justice Department, and the assigned prosecutor later quit.

Martin Kao, former CEO of the Hawaii defense contractor Navatek, told FBI agents that Lindsey Graham agreed to steer a $10 million government contract to Navatek's South Carolina work in return for a $100,000 campaign pledge. Kao said Navatek made similar deals with James Clyburn (Rep-D South Carolina) and Joe Wilson (Rep-R South Carolina). Graham, then a Republican senator from South Carolina, died in July 2026. No one has been charged, and the bargain itself rests on Kao's account.

The dinner. To get a 45-minute meeting with Graham on Tuesday, March 3, 2020, Navatek had to commit $40,000 in campaign contributions, vs. the $100,000 pledge Kao said bought the contract help. Before it, Kao emailed: "We don't need to pretend we give a shit about each other." Agent notes record Kao recalling Graham saying: "This is how much I want, and how much I am going to give you."

The probe. The FBI opened a bribery investigation in early 2025. ProPublica says Trump's purge of the bureau ended it; it documents the firings and the prosecutor's exit, not a signed order closing the case.

The denials. A Graham spokesperson told ProPublica the senator had no campaign-money motive. After the story ran on Tuesday, Oct. 20, Taylor Reidy, the late senator's communications director, called it "the ravings of a convicted felon" published "when Senator Graham cannot defend himself" (WCIV). A Clyburn spokesperson said donations never increased his support for a donor's request; Wilson's office said it followed election-finance rules. Michael Tongour, who attended the dinner, confirmed the meeting and the checks but said he saw no explicit swap of money for contracts.

What the Navy money trail in this case confirms, and what it doesn't:

What we’re less sure of4 of 8 claims