What did Jim Jordan say under oath in depositions about his knowledge of Strauss's actions?
Executive summary
Jim Jordan was deposed under oath on July 18, 2025 in a federal lawsuit over the Richard Strauss sexual‑abuse scandal, but public reporting and court filings show the record released so far contains no detailed transcript of his answers; instead, his office and multiple outlets reported that Jordan has consistently and under oath denied having seen or heard of Strauss’s abuses [1] [2] [3]. Survivors and a recent documentary continue to assert he knew about Strauss while coaching, and attorneys and press accounts characterize the deposition as a key, though still largely sealed, moment in the litigation [4] [5] [6].
1. What the record that is public actually says
Court filings and news reports confirm only that Representative Jim Jordan was deposed as part of civil litigation by former student‑athletes alleging Ohio State failed to stop Dr. Richard Strauss, and that the filing disclosed the date of his deposition without publishing a transcript or detailed substance of his testimony [1] [6]. Multiple outlets summarized the procedural fact of the deposition and noted it was the first time Jordan was questioned under oath in these cases, but none provided the actual Q&A from that session in the material reviewed here [1] [7].
2. What Jordan and his office said — the core, repeated statement
In the aftermath of the deposition, Jordan’s office reiterated the same categorical denial that Jordan has given publicly for years: that he “never saw or heard of any abuse, and if he had, he would have dealt with it,” a line attributed to his spokesperson and repeated in press coverage summarizing his response to allegations [6] [3]. Associated Press, WOSU and other outlets reporting on the deposition noted that Jordan has consistently denied knowledge of Strauss’s crimes or any cover‑up [2] [6].
3. What survivors, filmmakers and plaintiffs claim he said or knew — and how that contrasts
Former wrestlers and participants in the HBO‑Max documentary “Surviving Ohio State” have publicly maintained Jordan knew of Strauss’s misconduct while he was an assistant coach, and some survivors directly accuse him of ignoring complaints; reporters note that these accusations formed part of the impetus for deposing Jordan [5] [4]. Reporting frames the deposition as a contest between Jordan’s denials and the plaintiffs’ long‑standing claims that coaches and administrators—named in filings and media accounts—had notice of Strauss’s behavior [4] [6].
4. Limits of available reporting and why details are sparse
Multiple pieces emphasize that attorneys have tightly controlled disclosure: the court filing that confirmed Jordan’s deposition gave only the date and not a transcript, and at least one earlier deposition (that of former AD Andy Geiger) saw details leaked in violation of a protective order — an episode that underscores why the public record from these sessions can be limited or delayed [1] [8]. News outlets therefore rely on post‑deposition statements from parties and spokespeople rather than an independent, full accounting of Jordan’s in‑court answers [7] [6].
5. Competing narratives and implicit agendas to watch
The reporting shows two competing narratives: Jordan’s firm denials — emphasized by his office and repeated in AP and local coverage — versus survivor testimony amplified by the documentary and plaintiffs’ lawyers asserting he had knowledge [2] [5]. Observers and some defenders have at times accused political opponents of weaponizing the scandal because of Jordan’s national profile, a claim raised in earlier coverage and by some who defend him, though such assertions sit alongside persistent survivor accounts and the litigation itself [9] [4].
6. Bottom line — what can be stated with confidence
Based on the available reporting and the court filing, Jim Jordan testified under oath in July 2025 and the public record summarized by media outlets is that he denied ever seeing or hearing about Strauss’s abuse; however, the deposition transcript or detailed answers have not been published in the sources reviewed here, so reporting cannot independently verify the full scope or phrasing of his testimony beyond the denials attributed to him and his office [1] [3] [6].