This Isn't How The FBI Is Supposed To Work
A federal judge questioned the investigation. Departing FBI leaders questioned something bigger.
⚖️
Yesterday, July 7, Judge William M. Ray II, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, dealt a significant blow to the FBI’s investigation into the long-discredited claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Judge Ray, who was appointed by President Trump, quashed an FBI subpoena seeking what he described as a “staggering” amount of personal information about thousands of election workers involved in the administration of the 2020 vote count and recount in Fulton County. He also noted that the statute of limitations for any potential crimes had long since expired.
Judge Ray’s ruling is about far more than a subpoena. It raises fundamental questions about the legal basis for an investigation initiated by FBI Director Kash Patel and, more broadly, about the institutional independence of one of our nation’s most important law enforcement agencies.
🔹
During nearly three decades with the FBI, I served as both a Special Agent and a senior executive, leading investigations involving some of the nation’s most sensitive national security matters. Those investigations included allegations involving senior intelligence officials, U.S. ambassadors, Department of Defense personnel, and fellow FBI employees. All were entrusted with highly classified information. Some carried implications not only for our nation’s security, but for the safety of American military personnel serving overseas. The political ramifications of those investigations were profound. Yet the investigative standard never changed. We followed the facts, the evidence, and the law—wherever they led and regardless of whom they implicated.
That’s why the events unfolding today are so deeply troubling.
🔹
Earlier this year, former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard appeared at the scene as the FBI executed a search warrant for election records in Fulton County, Georgia. Since the position of Director of National Intelligence was created after 9/11, there has never been an instance of a DNI appearing at the execution of an FBI criminal search warrant. The Director of National Intelligence has no role in directing FBI criminal investigations, and her appearance raised legitimate questions about the independence of the Bureau’s investigative decisions.
Even more striking was the timing surrounding that search. Four days before the warrant was executed on January 27, the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Atlanta Field Office, Paul W. Brown, abruptly announced his retirement. His remarks to employees suggested deep disagreement with directives he had been given. While I don’t know the substance of those conversations, the timing inevitably raises questions. Subsequent reporting suggested that Brown was forced out after expressing concerns about the investigation.
Then came another extraordinary development.
🔹
Last week, numerous news organizations reported that Director Patel ordered FBI field offices across the country to identify and deploy a total of 260 Intelligence Analysts to Fulton County to review the seized records. Intelligence Analysts are among the Bureau’s most specialized personnel. Redirecting hundreds of them from field offices nationwide represents a significant commitment of investigative resources, and it diverts them from investigations that present far greater risks to the American people.
Within days of that directive, Special Agent in Charge Douglas DePodesta announced his abrupt retirement from the FBI’s Chicago Field Office.
In his farewell message to employees, he wrote:
“I’ve never backed down from a fight, as long as it meant our personnel could continue serving the FBI’s Mission. Unfortunately, that has proved unpopular over time, and my departure is a consequence of that.”
Shortly thereafter, FBI Headquarters publicly stated on social media that DePodesta’s departure resulted from his lack of alignment with President Trump’s administration.
Then another senior executive was caught up in the controversy.
Special Agent in Charge Jennifer Runyan of the Detroit Field Office sent an email praising DePodesta, who had previously served in Detroit. She was reportedly directed by FBI Headquarters to retract those remarks, underscoring how quickly internal expressions of support had become matters of concern. A post from an official FBI account on X stated, “It’s simple: Anyone who is not on board with THIS FBI under the leadership of President Trump - which has achieved the lowest murder rate ever - is free to leave.”
🔹
I don’t know what occurred in the private conversations surrounding these events. But after nearly three decades in the FBI, including in senior leadership, I do know how disagreements over investigative priorities and resource allocations are handled. Viewed together—the extraordinary commitment of national investigative resources, the abrupt departures of senior executives, the Bureau’s own public explanation for one of those departures, and Judge Ray’s ruling questioning the legal basis for the investigation—these events paint a deeply troubling picture.
The FBI derives its authority not simply from the powers Congress has granted it, but from the public’s confidence that those powers will be exercised independently, professionally, and in accordance with the law. That credibility took generations to build.
Every FBI agent understands the extraordinary authority entrusted to them. Very few positions in our nation are given the authority to take someone’s liberty, their livelihood, or their life. That authority demands integrity, sound judgment, and unwavering fidelity to the rule of law.
🔹
Americans don’t have to agree with every FBI investigation. But they should be able to trust that every investigation begins with evidence, proceeds according to the law, and ends without regard to politics.
If the Bureau is increasingly perceived as pursuing investigations because they serve political objectives rather than legitimate law enforcement purposes, the damage will extend far beyond any single case. Public trust will continue to erode as will the public’s confidence in the FBI. So will the confidence of prosecutors, judges, juries, and the international partners who have long viewed the FBI as the world’s premier law enforcement agency, known for its objectivity, its thoroughness, and its adherence to the rule of law.
The integrity of the FBI has never belonged to any President, any Director, or any political party. It belongs to the American people.
Once institutional integrity is lost, rebuilding it will not take months or years. It could take a generation.