Hearings Should Not Be Theater.
They Are Paper Trails.
(If oversight were meant to be dramatic, it would have better lighting...please do not give the congress critter better lighting for their social media campaigns…we already have too many peacocks)
There is a common refrain anytime a congressional hearing trends on social media:
“It’s just political theater.”
Now.
Are there moments of grandstanding? Yes.
Are there prepared remarks that sound like campaign ads? Occasionally.
Are there raised eyebrows, pointed questions, and perfectly timed sound bites? Absolutely.
But here is the part that rarely goes viral:
Hearings are not about the room.
They are about the record.
If oversight were pure theater, it would have better lighting, shorter speeches, and fewer footnotes.
Instead, it has transcripts.
And transcripts are where accountability lives.
What a Hearing Actually Does
A congressional hearing does several very unglamorous but extremely important things:
• It puts testimony under oath.
• It creates an official public record.
• It forces agencies to answer specific questions.
• It documents concerns in writing.
• It signals areas of oversight focus.
That transcript does not disappear.
It becomes part of the legislative history.
And legislative history matters.
The Power of the Record
When agencies implement a law, courts, oversight bodies, and future committees often look back at the hearing record to understand congressional intent.
What did Members emphasize?
What concerns were raised?
What assurances were given?
Those exchanges shape:
• Future rulemaking
• Inspector General reviews
• GAO investigations
• Litigation
• Subsequent amendments
A single sentence in a hearing can resurface years later.
The viral clip fades.
The transcript endures.
The Unsexy Reality of Oversight
Oversight is not glamorous.
It involves:
• Dense binders
• Statutory citations
• Follow-up letters
• Deadlines
• Repeated questioning over multiple hearings
It is slow.
Deliberate.
Occasionally repetitive.
If it were scripted for television, the producers would demand fewer acronyms.
But that repetition builds pressure.
Agencies respond differently when an issue appears:
• In one hearing, it is a question.
• In two hearings, it is a pattern.
• In three hearings, it is oversight priority.
Paper trails accumulate weight.
Why Public Participation Matters
When advocates submit testimony, request hearings, or push Members to ask specific questions, they are not chasing a moment.
They are shaping the record.
Even if the immediate outcome feels underwhelming.
Even if no dramatic announcement follows.
The record reflects what was raised.
And what is documented can be revisited.
What is not documented is easier to dismiss.
“But Nothing Happened.”
This is the most common critique.
“The hearing happened and nothing changed.”
Maybe not immediately.
But hearings often:
• Expose implementation gaps
• Trigger Inspector General audits
• Influence appropriations language
• Lay groundwork for future amendments
• Inform subsequent legislation
Oversight is cumulative.
It is less fireworks, more sedimentary rock.
Layer upon layer.
Unremarkable in isolation.
Powerful over time.
The Lighting Problem
If oversight were theater, it would be staged differently.
Dramatic music.
Clear villains.
Instant resolution.
Instead, it is fluorescent lighting and procedural rules.
Which makes it easy to underestimate.
But if you care about:
• Survivor equity
• Benefits administration
• Hiring authorities
• Regulatory implementation
You should care about hearings.
Because they are where agencies are questioned on the record.
And once something is on the record, it is harder to pretend it was never said.
The Bottom Line
Hearings are not the final act.
They are documentation.
They are leverage.
They are breadcrumbs for future accountability.
If you measure them only by headline impact, they look underwhelming.
If you measure them by record-building, they are foundational.
Oversight is not dramatic.
It is durable.
And in government, durable beats dramatic every time.
