Available public records show that after Peiter “Mudge” Zatko’s August 2022 whistleblower disclosures about Twitter’s security and alleged foreign government agents, (1) the Senate Judiciary Committee, not the Intelligence Committee, held a high‑profile open hearing with Zatko on September 13, 2022, where these national‑security concerns were aired. (cbsnews.com) (2) Zatko and/or his lawyers met with staff for several committees, including staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI); SSCI’s spokeswoman confirmed the committee had received his complaint and was working to set up a meeting with him. (tribune.com.pk) However, those reports describe staff‑level or member‑level meetings with the whistleblower, not a formal closed‑door session where “Twitter representatives” (i.e., current company executives) were “hauled” before SSCI.

Looking at SSCI’s official activity reports for the 117th and 118th Congresses, the committee describes a wide range of classified briefings and hearings but does not specifically mention any closed session with Twitter (or X) or follow‑on briefings with other large tech platforms arising from the Zatko allegations. At the same time, SSCI explicitly notes that “most of the Committee’s oversight work is conducted in secret and cannot be discussed publicly,” so the absence of a reference in these reports or in press coverage is not definitive proof that such a session never occurred. (congress.gov) We do know that SSCI has a history of closed‑door interactions with Twitter and other platforms on earlier issues like Russian election interference, and those prior briefings were publicly acknowledged. (inkl.com) But for the specific, post‑whistleblower closed‑door SSCI meeting with Twitter executives that Chamath forecast, there is no clear public confirmation either way.

Because SSCI’s classified proceedings are often not disclosed, and the committee itself emphasizes that much of its work cannot be made public, we cannot determine from open sources whether a closed‑door SSCI session with Twitter representatives (and subsequent similar sessions with other tech firms) actually occurred during the ensuing legislative term. Therefore the prediction’s outcome is best characterized as ambiguous, rather than clearly right or clearly wrong.