Former FBI, intelligence, diplomatic, and national security officials have issued a sharp critique of FBI Director Kash Patel, accusing him of politically motivated firings that threaten the bureau’s independence as a constitutional institution. The group, calling itself The Steady State, claims that the recent removal of agents Brian Driscoll, Michael Feinberg, and Walter Giardina was driven by political loyalty rather than the rule of law, effectively transforming the FBI into a tool of political power. The letter warns that this represents a dangerous shift, reminiscent of regimes where security services are subordinated to the will of political leaders rather than the law.
The letter from The Steady State emphasizes that the FBI, historically a bulwark against corruption and a guardian of civil liberties, should remain independent to balance national security with democratic values. The group accuses Patel and his deputy, Dan Bongino, of appointing leaders without meeting the ‘basic standards’ for such roles, further exacerbating concerns of political bias. Their letter asserts, ‘It is not about reform. It is about control,’ suggesting a broader effort to reshape the FBI’s role in American governance.
Among those dismissed were Driscoll, the former acting director of the FBI, and Giardina, a special agent involved in the investigation of Peter Navarro, Trump’s former trade advisor. These firings come amid heightened scrutiny of the bureau’s handling of the investigation into the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, which led to a widespread questionnaire for FBI personnel. Concerns grew after the administration ordered a list of all current and former personnel involved in the January 6 probe, raising fears of retaliation against those working on the case. The Trump administration has not yet taken action against those involved, though Trump has repeatedly criticized the FBI as ‘corrupt’ and claimed Patel will ‘straighten it out.’
The Steady State’s letter also highlights the broader implications of these firings, arguing that the FBI’s independence is a democratic necessity. The group warns that if the bureau is transformed into a political enforcer, it could lead to a dangerous precedent where national security operations become tools of personal power rather than impartial justice. The letter echoes historical warnings about the dangers of politicizing security institutions, citing examples from abroad where such tactics have led to authoritarian outcomes.
In addition to the firings, the FBI has faced mounting pressure from both internal and external sources. The January 6 questionnaire and the subsequent list of personnel involved in the investigation have sparked widespread concern among FBI agents, many of whom fear that their work could be used against them. This has intensified calls for transparency and reform, as the bureau is expected to maintain its role as an impartial enforcer of the law. However, the recent firings have raised questions about whether the FBI is prioritizing political loyalty over its constitutional mandate.
The Trump administration’s response to the situation remains ambiguous. While Trump has criticized the FBI as ‘corrupt,’ he has not yet taken concrete steps to address the allegations of political interference. This lack of action has fueled skepticism among critics, who argue that the administration’s reluctance to act may indicate a deeper complicity in the politicization of the bureau. Meanwhile, the FBI’s leaders, including Patel and Bongino, have remained largely silent on the matter, avoiding public comments on the controversy surrounding the firings.