In a week marked by intense scrutiny and viral moments, FBI Director Kash Patel found himself at the center of a political and media storm, as both his leadership style and decision-making came under fire during high-profile Congressional hearings. The controversy was ignited on September 20, 2025, when a photograph taken by Win McNamee captured Patel’s handwritten self-help note during questioning by US lawmakers—a note that, once leaked online, quickly became a lightning rod for mockery and debate across the internet.
The note, scribbled on Patel’s personalized letterhead, contained a series of affirmations: “Good fight with Swalwell. Hold the line. Brush off their attacks. Rise above the next line of partisan attacks.” According to News18 and The Economic Times, these words were not just a private pep talk but became fodder for countless online commentators. One X user quipped, “Lmfao he’s writing words of affirmation to himself,” while another joked, “This reads like the pep talk I give myself before every holiday with my family.” Some critics were less charitable, calling Patel “an absolute loser having to write himself motivational notes because no one loves him.” The note’s viral reach—over 1.6 million views, as reported by journalist Aaron Rupar—underscored how quickly a private coping strategy could become a public spectacle in the digital age.
The timing of the viral note could hardly have been worse for Patel. He was already facing heated questioning from both House and Senate Judiciary Committees about his handling of two high-profile cases: the investigation into late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The House Judiciary Committee hearing, in particular, turned combative as Patel repeatedly clashed with Democrats, especially California Congressman Eric Swalwell. According to News18, Swalwell pressed Patel on the Justice Department’s refusal to unseal certain grand jury documents related to Epstein, pointedly asking whether any files mentioned former President Donald Trump. Patel, visibly frustrated, shot back, “Your fixation on this matter and baseless accusations that I’m hiding child pedophiles is disgusting.” When Swalwell persisted, Patel retorted, “Why don’t you try to spell it out if you’re going to mock me? Use the alphabet, A, B, C, D, E, F.”
Social media users seized on both the note and Patel’s combative responses. As The Daily Mail put it, the note “read like affirmations,” and one user remarked, “Lmao this is so sad. It’s like he’s hyping himself up in the mirror before the hearing.” Others speculated that Patel’s motivational words were the same messages he might have conveyed to Trump in private, as he fought to keep his job as FBI director. The spectacle was further amplified by the fact that Patel’s notepad bore his own letterhead, a detail critics found both unusual and emblematic of what they saw as self-aggrandizement.
But the drama was not confined to the House. The following day, tempers flared during a US Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where Patel and Senator Mazie Hirono engaged in a fiery, personal exchange. What began as routine questioning quickly spiraled into what NY Sun described as a “full-blown roast,” with Patel refusing to name names and Hirono pressing harder. The back-and-forth grew so tense and chaotic that it stunned the chamber and left onlookers wondering if the proceedings had veered from oversight into spectacle.
Patel’s contentious week was further complicated by broader questions about his leadership. As NY Sun reported, the 45-year-old director has been dogged by accusations of mishandling both the initial investigation into the Kirk shooting and the limited release of the Epstein files. During his testimony, Patel defended his decision to release images of the Kirk gunman, arguing that the quick transparency helped the suspect’s father recognize and turn in his son. He also touted record fentanyl seizures, a drop in the national murder rate, and the arrest of thousands of violent criminals as evidence of his effectiveness at the bureau’s helm.
However, Patel’s antagonistic tone did little to win over critics. He famously called Senator Adam Schiff “the biggest fraud to ever sit in the United States Senate,” and when Representative Jared Moskowitz asked if the FBI would investigate claims that Trump’s signature on a birthday card to Epstein was forged, Patel replied, “Sure, I’ll do it.” Senator John Neely Kennedy, meanwhile, urged Patel to release all Epstein files, warning, “I think the essential question for the American people is this: They know that Epstein trafficked young women for sex to himself. They want to know who, if anyone else, he trafficked these young women to. And that’s a very fair question.”
The week’s drama drew a stark contrast between Patel’s embattled tenure and the legacy of former FBI Director William H. Webster, who was memorialized in Washington just two days earlier. Webster, who passed away at age 101, was remembered for his calm resolve and unwavering integrity during his time leading both the FBI and CIA. According to NY Sun, Webster was “judicious,” steering the agency with a steady hand and modernizing its approach to crime and corruption. He was nominated by a Democratic president and promoted by a Republican successor—an accomplishment that seems almost unimaginable in today’s polarized climate.
Patel, by comparison, has faced mounting internal and external challenges. The NY Sun noted that he and his deputy Daniel Bongino were recently sued by three former high-ranking FBI officials for alleged retaliatory firings. One official claimed Patel said his job security “depended on the removal of the agents who worked on cases involving the President.” Meanwhile, President Trump has continued to express support for Patel, but Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputy Todd Blanche are reportedly distancing themselves from the director. Andrew Bailey, the new co-deputy director, is rumored to be Patel’s likely replacement, signaling that the winds at the bureau may be shifting.
Despite the criticism, some within law enforcement circles argue that Patel’s approach is what the modern FBI needs. Scott Nelson, a former FBI deputy assistant director, told NY Sun, “The machine today is responding to transparency and results. These guys don’t have the time to sit back in their rocking chairs and judiciously weigh out the action. To the contrary, Patel is a street agent’s guy.” Yet, as the events of this week have shown, the cost of that approach may be a loss of the public confidence and internal morale that defined the Webster era.
In a time when the FBI’s credibility is under as much scrutiny as its director, Kash Patel’s viral note and the uproar it caused serve as a microcosm of the challenges facing American institutions: the collision of private vulnerability with public accountability, and the relentless pressure of a political landscape that rarely forgives a misstep—no matter how human it may be.
