Gann criticizes House leaders for censoring and denying study requests on Inola smelter, AI surveillance, and House rules

I have noticed a recurring pattern when it comes to the Oklahoma State House leadership under Speaker Kyle Hilbert: they do not like conservative State Rep. Tom Gann and his reform-minded watchdog bent.

Gann Raises Concerns After House Leadership Blocks Hearing on  Controversial Proposed Oklahoma Smelter Project 

OKLAHOMA CITY (July 27th) — State Rep. Tom Gann, R-Inola, condemned Oklahoma State House  leadership Tuesday for rejecting three key interim-study requests, including a proposed hearing on the controversial Inola aluminum smelter, the ongoing rollout of automated AI surveillance technology, and a study on reforming the rules governing House activity and conduct. 

Gann also said House officials prevented the House press office from distributing his public statement criticizing the denials. Members ordinarily submit news releases through the taxpayer funded office for distribution to news organizations and publication on the House website. 

“This is censorship, plain and simple,” Gann said. “House leadership first used its power to  prevent an elected representative from studying matters of enormous public importance. It then used its control of a taxpayer-funded press office to suppress criticism of that decision. That is an abuse of institutional power, and it shows a disregard for the people, the free press, and the principles of open and free discussion of policy.” 

Gann said House Speaker Kyle Hilbert told him the three requests were denied because the topics had been discussed previously. Gann said that Hilbert's explanation ignores significant new developments and misunderstands the purpose of interim studies. 

“An issue does not cease to exist merely because it has been discussed before,” Gann said. “When the facts change, the law changes or new threats emerge, legislators have a responsibility to continue asking questions. Otherwise, interim studies become a privilege granted only to members and subjects approved by leadership.” 

Hilbert rejected Gann's request to examine the latest revelations related to the proposed $4 billion smelter in Inola, an issue that is dominating the dialogue of the 2026 gubernatorial election 

A massive state subsidy for the project was passed in 2025 after the proposal was first filed over  a weekend and rushed through the House with final consideration by Tuesday. The state Attorney General has since filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the project, citing environmental and public-health concerns. 

Residents have organized in opposition, local officials have faced demands for a moratorium, and citizen-led petition efforts have been launched. A joint committee of the Muscogee Nation National Council also recently advanced a resolution opposing the construction and operation of an aluminum smelter on the Nation’s reservation lands. The committee approved the resolution 9-0 after its authors warned of the potential for “generational environmental trauma.” 

“This proposal implicates public health, agriculture, tribal interests, national security, foreign control of critical infrastructure and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars,” Gann said. “Regardless of whether a legislator ultimately supports or opposes the project, the people of Oklahoma deserve a public examination of the facts before state policy officials follow through with a decision of this magnitude.” 

Hilbert also refused to allow a public hearing on the continued rollout of automated license plate readers, commonly known as ALPRs, and the increasingly large databases recording the movements of motorists who are not suspected of committing a crime. 

Gann previously led interim studies on ALPR technology, but he said important legal and technological developments have occurred since those hearings. 

On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Chatrie v. United States that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it accesses a person’s historical cellphone-location information, even when the information covers a limited period and is maintained by a private technology company. 

The case involved a geofence warrant rather than license plate readers. The Supreme Court did not expressly rule on ALPR systems. However, civil-liberties attorneys, including attorneys with the Institute for Justice, have said the court’s reasoning could have significant implications for litigation over warrantless searches of ALPR databases. 

“A major Supreme Court decision involving government access to privately maintained location data is exactly the kind of development that warrants additional legislative study,” Gann said. “If a new ruling with nationwide implications is not sufficient justification to revisit Oklahoma’s mass-surveillance policies, it is difficult to imagine what would be.” 

In previous hearings, Gann has demonstrated that the devices are not specifically authorized by state law, and he believes the continued refusals of public safety authorities to operate within the constraints of legal authorization greatly diminish the standing of these officials in the public’s perception of their commitment to following the law, and thus their moral authority to enforce it. Essentially, as a requirement of enforcing the law, they must first abide by it. 

And, in what Gann calls the ultimate irony, a third requested study would have examined whether the parliamentary rules of the Oklahoma House allow all 101 elected representatives to meaningfully represent their constituents. 

Gann said the current rules concentrate authority in a small group of leaders and limit the ability of individual representatives to offer motions, obtain recorded votes, challenge leadership decisions and place issues before the full House. 

“The denial of this study demonstrates the very problem the study was intended to examine,” Gann said. “The rules concentrate power in leadership, and then that same leadership structure prevents members from publicly studying whether too much power has been concentrated in leadership. It is a system designed to protect itself from scrutiny.”

House leadership has described interim studies as an important legislative tool that allows lawmakers to gather information, evaluate policy proposals and question experts before legislation is considered. 

Gann said that tool loses its value when leadership determines which elected representatives may use it and which questions may be asked. 

“The people did not elect 101 representatives merely to provide 101 votes for decisions made by a few,” Gann said. “They elected us to investigate government, debate policy, ask difficult questions and carry the voices of our districts into the Capitol.” 

An interim study does not enact a law or commit the state to a particular policy. It provides a public forum in which lawmakers can gather evidence, hear competing viewpoints and consider whether legislation is needed. 

Gann said the rejection of the studies and the effort to prevent his response from being distributed will not end his examination of the issues. 

“If House leadership will not provide a committee room in which these matters can be examined, and if it will not allow the House press office to tell the public that the requests were denied, then I will take the facts directly to the people of Oklahoma,” Gann said. “These questions do not become less important because leadership refuses to place them on an agenda or allow them into an official news release.” 

Gann urged Oklahomans to ask their representatives whether they supported the current House rules and whether they believe leadership should possess the power to prevent individual members from studying issues affecting their constituents. 

“The people deserve answers,” Gann said. “They also deserve legislators who are not afraid to ask the questions.” 

Tom Gann, a Republican, represents District 8 in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. His district  includes parts of Mayes, Rogers and Wagoner counties.