You're entitled to that opinion. And I'd agree that a lawful request from an official government institution, agency, or investigative body requesting the information in accordance with an ongoing investigation should receive compliance. But that's the catch: it isn't a government institution, agency, or investigative body requesting the information; it's a "watchdog group", which is a group of citizens who make it their business to pay special attention to the activities of specific agencies and institutions within the government, but do not belong to, represent, any government institution or agency. Literally any group can be deemed a "watchdog" by virtue of a keen interest in the doings of any particular government agency or action. And most are highly partisan. There are watchdog groups across the political spectrum. And they are well within their rights to request information. But there is no agency or institution in government that is compelled to comply with any request from any watchdog group. Most of these groups will be denied access to information requested, and they know this. Which gives them the opportunity to make the bad faith arguments of "bad optics" and "what are they hiding", usually in an effort to gin up sensationalist press and support for their own organization, which almost certainly exists and pays for their operation through donor networks of other like-minded partisan operations. If they are truly motivated by a "need to know" they still have avenues to access information, like FOIA. There are reasons why the committee overseeing the 1/6 investigation hasn't attempted to compel Secret Service agents to testify to events of that day. Because they can already make their case without having to compromise the oaths of Secret Service agents doing their jobs. One of the most important aspects of that oath is to keep partisanship out of the Secret Service. Not every agent that serves is, or is required to be, of the same party allegiance as the official they are tasked with protecting. Could you imagine if every Secret Service agent that disagreed with the actions of a public servant they are entrusted to protect, based on their political affiliation, just started to talking to whomever, whenever based on political differences or biases? Or the possibility of misconstruing events by only having minute or partial details of large and complex events or crises based on the information they see or overhear while serving one singular individual during a situation that may span several departments or agencies over a matter of days or weeks? The possibility of undermining national interest is what drives the necessity of their silence, because they can't possibly know every facet of every situation ongoing within government. The limitations placed on Secret Service agents are in place for a reason. The protocols they practice in service to their oath are in place for a reason. Once again, ask yourself why the 1/6 committee (a body that certainly has the authority to compel testimony) hasn't deemed it necessary to question individual agents. Because the officials those agents serve are already testifying. The committee knows what they're doing, if they needed the testimony of individual agents they would certainly go after it. But they haven't, and there's a reason for that.