The Pattern of Appointments: Armstrong
Exploring Oklahoma’s Governor’s proclivity to appointing people to decide how much of your money they can receive.
Statehouse Secrets is written by Jonathan Hewitt, an independent investigative journalist digging into money, power, and backroom deals at the Oklahoma Capitol.
If you find this kind of deep, document‑driven reporting valuable, please consider subscribing and sharing. Each paid subscription helps cover records requests, research time, and the long nights it takes to turn raw files into stories the insiders don’t want you to read.
There are appointments, and then there are placements.
Governor Kevin Stitt’s expected nomination of Alan Armstrong to the United States Senate falls into the latter category, and understanding why requires stepping back from the headline and looking at the structure behind it.
Who is Alan Armstrong and Williams Companies
Armstrong is not a typical political figure stepping into public service. He is the Executive Chairman of Williams Companies, one of the largest natural gas infrastructure firms in the country. The company operates roughly one-third of the nation’s natural gas through more than 30,000 miles of pipeline, and its current position is not static. It is in the middle of aggressive expansion.
As of 2026, Williams has more than $7 billion in power projects currently in execution, a $15 billion transmission pipeline backlog, and between $6.1 and $6.7 billion in planned capital expenditures this year alone. At least $3.2 billion of those projects are not simply under construction, they are actively subject to federal regulatory decisions, legal challenges, or permitting outcomes that have yet to be resolved.
As of March 2026, Armstrong himself holds approximately $205 million in Williams stock. That is not a passive connection. It is a direct financial stake in the success, expansion, and regulatory approval of the company’s projects.
And that is where the appointment begins to matter.
Why the Appointment Matters
Because the United States Senate is not removed from these outcomes. It sits directly in the middle of them.
Right now, sitting in the Senate are major pipeline permitting reform bills that would fundamentally reshape how projects like Williams’ are approved. The Improving Interagency Coordination for Pipeline Reviews Act would consolidate permitting authority under FERC and remove the ability of states to block pipeline projects through Clean Water Act challenges. The SPEED Act would compress environmental review timelines, limit legal challenges, and prevent future administrations from reversing issued permits. These are not abstract policy debates. These are structural changes that directly determine whether Williams’ $15 billion backlog moves forward, stalls, or dies.
At the same time, the Senate controls the confirmation and oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the agency that ultimately approves interstate pipeline projects. One of those commissioner seats turns over in June 2026. That means the Senate—during the exact window of this appointment—will be shaping the composition of the body that determines the fate of billions in active Williams projects.
This is the same Senate that Williams spent $1.26 million lobbying in 2024 alone. It should be no surprise that nearly half of that total amount went to members of both chambers Energy committee members.
Williams hasn’t gotten big direct federal grants, but that’s not how energy subsidies usually work. The company benefits from billions in sector-wide federal tax breaks and is positioning itself to claim huge IRA tax credits for hydrogen and carbon capture. On top of that, it’s already been a partner on federally funded pilot projects through universities and state agencies. So the idea that Williams stands outside the federal subsidy system is false; it just gets most of its taxpayer support through the tax code and research partnerships, not direct checks.
The same Senate that will decide the trajectory of pipeline permitting reform.
And now, potentially, the same Senate that will include the former CEO and current executive chairman of the company most directly affected by those decisions.
That is not distance from power. That is the same tool I have spoken about time and time again—proximity to it.
But the Armstrong appointment does not stand alone, and that is where the broader picture begins to take shape.
Patterns of Appointment and Money
Just days earlier, Dustin Hilliary, Gov. Stitt’s senior advisor and chief negotiator was floated to be on the short list of potential Mullin replacements. When Hilliary stepped aside, he was immediately appointed to the University of Oklahoma Board of Regents. At the same time, Armstrong continues to serve as chairman of the OU Foundation. Remember from my previous articles that many of the Hilliary family have been Stitt appointees, in agencies and councils that influence what companies get Oklahoma tax dollars.
That sequence matters, because it reveals that these decisions are not isolated. They are connected.
Hilliary, one of the most politically embedded figures in Oklahoma, is placed into a position of institutional control. Armstrong, one of the most financially and corporately embedded figures in Oklahoma, is placed into a position of federal legislative influence.
Different arenas but the same foundational outcome.
What changes with Armstrong is not the strategy. It is the scale.
Hilliary’s appointment affects a state dollars. Armstrong’s affects federal policy, national energy infrastructure, and tens of billions of dollars in capital flow. But in both cases, the individuals being elevated are not outsiders brought in to oversee a system. They are insiders already tied to it, placed into roles where they can influence the direction of that system moving forward.
That is the throughline.
And the timing of it is not incidental.
Governor Stitt is term-limited. He is no longer operating under the constraints of reelection or voter accountability in the same way a sitting candidate would be. The incentives shift in that environment. The focus moves from maintaining office to positioning for what comes after it.
Because political power does not end when a term expires. It transitions. Into advisory roles, corporate boards, national networks, and long-term influence that exists outside of elected office but is built during it.
Appointments like this exist inside that transition.
There is no need to speculate beyond what is visible.
A governor appoints a longtime donor and Fortune 500 executive into the United States Senate at the exact moment that executive’s company has billions of dollars tied up in federal legislative and regulatory outcomes. At the same time, his closest political advisor is placed into a parallel position of influence within one of the most powerful institutions in the state. Both individuals are already part of the same overlapping network of corporate, political, and financial relationships that define Oklahoma’s power structure.
Individually, each decision can be explained.
Together, they form a pattern.
This is not simply about filling a Senate seat. It is about who is being placed into positions where decisions are made, and how closely those individuals are tied to the outcomes of those decisions.
The Armstrong appointment makes that question unavoidable. Because once you step back, the structure becomes clear.
This isn’t random.
And it isn’t isolated.
It appears to be deliberate.
The views expressed here are mine and mine alone. They do not represent the Department of Defense, Department of War, or any division or subs division of the United States Government.