***
A colossal ProPublica investigation published last week has made national headlines, and its implications for South Carolina are significant, to say the least.
Entitled “The FBI Anti-Corruption Squad Was Circling Susan Collins — Until Trump Got in the Way,” the article alleges that Martin Kao, CEO of defense contractor Navatek, illegally bribed U.S. senator Susan Collins, prompting the FBI to investigate her.
Shortly after that investigation began, the FBI reportedly opened another investigation into U.S. senator Lindsey Graham after he attended a steak dinner in South Carolina with Kao. According to ProPublica, Navatek had been “eyed for a rapid expansion” in the Palmetto State
Both investigations were ultimately called off after Donald Trump took office in 2025.
For Graham and his political allies, the end of the federal investigations appeared to bring a significant reprieve. But things changed when S.C. first circuit solicitor David Pascoe announced his campaign for South Carolina attorney general.
The reason was straightforward: the state’s top prosecutor has broad investigative authority, and a Pascoe administration could have potentially scrutinized Graham’s meeting with Kao, particularly in light of the FBI’s investigation into the contractor and his alleged efforts to bribe a sitting United States senator.
***
On May 21, 2026, Graham and Laura Loomer both communicated directly with President Trump, with these interactions confirmed by the parties on social media. That same day, Trump and Loomer took to social media to attack Pascoe.
The timing raised an obvious question: Why was the president weighing in on the South Carolina attorney general’s race as the United States was entering the early stages of war with Iran? No definitive public explanation was given.
For Graham and elements of the South Carolina political establishment, Pascoe presented a serious problem. If elected attorney general, he could have had the authority and independence to investigate the circumstances surrounding Graham’s meeting with Kao.
Pascoe has built his political reputation around an approach to prosecution that he says places justice and the rule of law above party affiliation or personal relationships. That independence was particularly significant in this race.
The Republican nominee, David Stumbo, presented a different set of political calculations. Stumbo’s consultants previously worked for Graham’s political action committee, creating an obvious political connection between the two camps. Critics argued Stumbo would therefore be less likely to pursue an investigation involving Graham.
Stumbo is also currently facing allegations that he improperly took $36,000 from his own office.
***
RELATED | LINDSEY GRAHAM RED PILL UPDATE
***
Taken together, the stories involving Graham, Navatek, Loomer and Stumbo raise a much larger question: how much money and political influence were brought to bear in an effort to prevent David Pascoe from winning the South Carolina attorney general’s race? Some estimates put the figure in the millions, although the total has not been publicly established.
What is clear is that powerful political interests had a significant stake in the outcome. If those interests were willing to spend heavily to defeat Pascoe, the question becomes ‘why?’ One possible explanation is the prospect of a future investigation into Graham’s meeting with Kao.
Trump’s intervention provided Graham with one layer of political protection, while the South Carolina political establishment provided another. Given the intensity of the opposition to Pascoe, it is reasonable to ask whether Graham and his allies feared the possibility of an investigation if Pascoe were elected.
The answer matters because the attorney general is supposed to serve the interests of South Carolina — not the interests of a political machine.
It is a story that deserves considerably more scrutiny. And so, to whoever is elected attorney general in November: I would encourage you to investigate any connections between Graham’s current political associates and Navatek, Martin Kao, or the meeting that took place in South Carolina.
If there is nothing there, an investigation should establish that. If there is, South Carolinians deserve to know.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Josh Bazzle is a South Carolina-based political journalist.
***
SOUND OFF…
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
