Kash Patel’s challenge: reforming the FBI while winning its trust

Like most of Donald Trump’s nominees, Kash Patel’s overt partisanship and criticism of the “deep state” make him an unconventional choice for FBI director. That’s either a feature or a bug, depending on your attitude towards him and the FBI. 

Yet his career as a government attorney generally aligns with that of previous directors, with only Louis Freeh having had FBI experience. The bigger question is whether Patel will treat the role of FBI director as simply another government attorney job. 

The FBI director oversees the nation’s premier law enforcement and domestic security agency while also acting as the country's de facto top law enforcement official. Patel’s remit as director will ironically be more daunting — to restore the FBI to its former stature and credibility after playing a large role in knocking it down, deservedly or not. That’s a job for a law enforcement leader, not a lawyer. 

To succeed, he must implement a solid reform agenda while winning over a workforce in desperate need of leadership.  

What Patel’s reform agenda may be, however, remains largely a mystery. As a regular on the podcast circuit and the author of “Government Gangsters,” Patel’s criticisms of the FBI’s involvement in “Russiagate” and other imbroglios are well known. However, his concrete policy proposals for the bureau have been relatively sparse. 

While “Government Gangsters” has a whole chapter on reforming the FBI, most of it simply revisits various scandals that presumably won’t happen under Patel’s watch. Any hopes of investigating and prosecuting his list of deep state actors appear stillborn. 

The most actionable idea, reducing FBI headquarters staff and possibly moving it all out of Washington, will find little resistance from most onboard FBI personnel, although Patel will presumably want to keep a desk in D.C. to be close to his boss.  

Since his announcement as director designee, Patel has kept a relatively low profile. Any new ideas will likely be kept under wraps until his confirmation hearings. It’s been up to commenters on X and other social media platforms to speculate while hoping to influence his plans. 

However, Patel’s real test will be outlining and communicating his vision for the FBI, not just as an institution but as a community of dedicated law enforcement professionals with a unique culture and ethos. To succeed, he must implement a solid reform agenda while winning over a workforce in desperate need of leadership. 

His ability to enact any meaningful change will depend on whether he genuinely believes in the work FBI personnel do every day. Of that, we know almost nothing. The good news is that it allows him to begin his tenure with the right tone and messaging. 

Patel’s FBI debut should begin with recognizing the sacrifices of FBI employees throughout its history and his appreciation of those sacrifices. Those sacrifices are many and varied. 

Every FBI office has a memorial wall for those who lost their lives through adversarial action. Agents and support staff have also died in training accidents, post-9/11 illnesses, and most tragically, by suicide. Still others have survived critical incidents yet bear lasting physical and psychological scars. 

Patel should read these post-incident reports and, like new agents at the FBI Academy, hold the service weapons of fallen agents in his hands. Personal and frequent outreach to the families of these heroes and attending memorial services would demonstrate his understanding that the FBI job can often be physically and psychologically dangerous. 

As FBI director, he’ll also be expected to do the same for other federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel. 

Leading an agency that faces such dangers requires an understanding of what’s necessary to keep FBI personnel safe.

FBI agents are trained to use a continuum of force up to and including deadly force. Their firearms training is among the most frequent and rigorous in law enforcement, designed to provide agents every tactical advantage to avoid such lethal outcomes. 

Constant legal instruction drills the DOJ deadly force policy into each agent so that agents use such force only when necessary. But deadly force incidents are inevitable, and how Patel navigates his first will likely define his directorship. 

Contrary to Hollywood portrayals, such incidents have deep, lasting repercussions for agents, both legally and psychologically. Reviews of these incidents, whether conducted internally by FBI inspectors or by local jurisdictions, often leave agents feeling vilified. 

While agents are responsible for every round they fire, they also need to know their director understands how and why an agent may have to resort to deadly force. Patel can’t abandon them if that decision becomes a public controversy. 

The FBI’s culture is as varied as its 56 field offices, each shaped by its unique history and the distinct challenges in its area of responsibility. Patel should prioritize visiting these offices to receive briefings from special agents-in-charge and senior management. 

But more importantly, he should meet with case agents and support staff at the squad level without management present. Engaging directly with these “brick agents” — the backbone of the bureau — could provide him with valuable insights and ideas gained through years of casework and liaison with local law enforcement. Such engagement will also give him a valuable feedback loop to see if his reforms are taking hold or will be easily discarded when a new administration eventually takes over. 

Good ideas for reform are plentiful both inside and outside the bureau. Internally, various director advisory groups, representing different FBI components, bring concerns from the field to the director’s personal attention. Such concerns range from the ever-growing administrative burden to a lack of investigative resources. 

Externally, the FBI Agents Association advocates for due process and disciplinary fairness for active-duty agents, while the Society of Former Special Agents offers perspectives from the retired ranks. 

While Patel may think these groups are simply knee-jerk bureau apologists, the reality is quite different. They have long advocated for some of the changes critics and reformers are now floating. 

Patel should maintain regular communication with these organizations, using them to vet potential reforms and to gain a more nuanced understanding of the Bureau’s needs. While he might not always accept their recommendations, such engagement will help clarify his thoughts as he moves forward with reforms. 

Ultimately, Patel’s success in the FBI will hinge on his ability to bridge divides between the bureau’s past and its future, its critics and defenders and its leadership and rank-and-file. 

To lead the FBI, he will have to combine a bold vision for reform with a deep respect for the institution and the individuals who serve it. Only then can he hope to restore the trust and excellence that have long defined the Bureau’s mission of protecting the American people. 

This retired agent wishes him the best of luck.

Christopher M. Donohue is a retired FBI agent.