Between President Trump’s actions and demeanor, his iron grip over Americans has only tightened. His cult-like following stems from a variety of aspects, but what allows these actions to happen, and more importantly, who within the government is facilitating it?

One member of his cabinet is particularly important to look at — Kash Patel. Beyond being a featured headline in numerous ‘Breaking News’ stories, there’s more about his administration that stands to be studied.

Kash Patel has served a number of government positions since 2012, and joined the Trump Administration in 2019. More specifically, between 2012 and 2017 he served as a staff member at the Department of Justice. His position was a federal prosecutor, housed under the National Security Division. While he did serve as the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives for a time, and as Chief of Staff to the U.S. Secretary of Defense, he has never previously served in senior law enforcement.

This lack of experience is considerably uncharacteristic, as every other previous FBI Director since its inception has always had extensive experience in senior law enforcement. While these lacking qualifications may not be a glaring sign to those not aware of FBI Director history, it extends beyond just work experience: Patel has produced unfaithful service to the intentions of the organization.

In an interview conducted between Patel and Eric Swalwell — a Democrat in California — it was made clear the political reservations that define Patel’s administration. The article discusses a variety of issues throughout Patel’s handling of the FBI, most notably how he has been managing its resources and people. Marc Fisher (a known New Yorker writer), questions why Patel cleared Dan Bongino (former United States Co-Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation) of a polygraph – a lie detector used by the FBI as a routine procedure and a requirement for the hiring process. While this hiring requirement remains under Patel, he has continually taken advantage of his seniority in order to clear others of the necessary polygraph, something that everyone taken on by the FBI must pass in order to be considered eligible for any position. 

This is one instance of many that characterizes Patel’s handling of the FBI and the consequences that arise from his lack of effectiveness. So far, he has been pointed out for his lacking qualifications in direct comparison to his predecessors. More severely, he has begun to misrepresent what should be the intentions of the FBI. The FBI themselves cite their mission statement as a duty to ‘protect the American people and uphold the Constitution.’ These are both things that Patel himself has not been successful in maintaining.

The reason for this is that he has diverted away from the main priorities of the FBI. Reporters Emily Bazelon and Rachel Poser with the New York Times wrote an article noting that Patel has moved the FBI away from focusing on public corruption, cybercrime and, most importantly, counter-terrorism – a unit directly aiding in protecting American people – and has instead shifted his attention towards immigration restriction. This reflects on his commitment to the current Trump administration, as Patel is directly feeding into the current anti-immigration wave being put forward by the U.S. government.

This presents an enormous problem due to the nature of the U.S., where as of June 2025 the Pew Research Center notes that 51.4 million people currently residing in the country are immigrants, making up a total of 15.4% of the population in the U.S. Immigrants not only contribute in numbers, but also in culture; places New York and Los Angeles are home to millions of people with backgrounds from all around the world, all meeting in a single rich and culturally diverse city.

In threatening such a core of our country, Patel proves his commitment to push politics at the forefront of an agency that previously was never tied to immigration to the extent that it is now. Now, he does it because of his tie to the same Trump Administration that granted him power in the government as FBI Director.

In supporting and upholding the intentions of a president trying to fight against immigrants that have stood to define the U.S., Patel directly interferes with the intentions of the FBI to preserve safety. Patel has reassigned around 20% of the FBI’s workforce towards immigration specifically. This in particular caters towards the wave of anti-immigration rhetoric being pushed out throughout the country. As Patel begins to focus more of his attention away from counter-terrorism and public corruption and instead prioritizes the ideologies of the current president, he no longer stands to represent the safety.

The second way in which Patel has misled his organization from its mission is in his accused violation of the Constitution. This has become an extremely important topic of discussion surrounding Patel, as he is currently being sued by multiple FBI agents.

Reporter Devlin Barrett with The New York Times gives context to the situation, where former FBI agents have filed a lawsuit against the FBI Director because of their apparent unjustified termination. This stems from the fact that these FBI agents were present at a Black Lives Matter protest, and kneeled in response. Patel, for this reason, fired approximately sixteen FBI agents – all of whom were seemingly a part of the counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence units – despite the fact that their actions did not act in a retaliatory manner to their purpose and work. 

While none of the FBI agents had been formerly trained in crowd control, they were still deployed to the scene. Patel still followed through with his decision to fire them. Kneeling, as stated in the lawsuit, was a direct attempt by the agents to level with the crowd and demonstrate a law enforcement that would not act violently or in retaliation to a protest directly sparked by the police brutality that has continued to hang over people.

By firing these agents, Patel has demonstrated his unwillingness to bend from the Trump administration. Based on the previously mentioned article, Patel did not fire these agents out of their misconduct or improper action because under the previous FBI Director and his Deputy, the FBI agents had been cleared of any further investigation and wrong-doing.

By going after agents that had already been investigated and pardoned due to their actions not being deemed political, Patel is serving the biased perspective of the current president. He proves unable to separate the political administration to the extent that it begins to harm people and can no longer be present on the basis of neutrality.

This is reinforced by the case summary of the lawsuit, where its premise is centered around wrongful termination to appeal to the wishes of the current political administration. Despite the nature of their work and its role in protecting people by serving as FBI agents, Patel still chose to go through with firing them presumably because of Trump. 

This can point to Patel’s violation of the Constitution as he condemns the assembly of people guaranteed by the First Amendment. The political nature of his opposition to said assembly that interferes with the intentions of the current president demonstrates his lack of devotion to the protection of freedom and people, a commitment that should arguably be at the forefront of an FBI Directors duties.

While the lawsuit hasn’t concluded, Trump is still president and Patel still retains his position. The actions taken by Patel should be regarded as a serious reflection of who our country puts into power and with what intentions – to serve people, or to cater to politics.

In supporting and upholding the intentions of a president trying to fight against immigrants that have stood to define the U.S., Patel directly interferes with the intentions of the FBI to preserve safety. Patel has reassigned around 20% of the FBI’s workforce towards immigration specifically.