FBI Director Kash Patel found himself at the center of a political and public firestorm this week, as his testimony before Congress on the Jeffrey Epstein case and his handling of the Charlie Kirk assassination investigation drew withering criticism from lawmakers, survivors, and the broader public. Over two days of hearings on September 18 and 19, 2025, Patel’s conduct and comments not only inflamed bipartisan frustration but triggered a viral wave of online mockery after cameras caught him scribbling affirmational notes to himself during a heated House Judiciary Committee session.
The drama began as Patel appeared before both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, facing pointed questions about the FBI’s approach to political violence and, most explosively, the agency’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s files. According to The Daily Mail and The Daily Beast, Patel’s testimony was marked by combative exchanges, particularly with California Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell, who pressed him on whether any sealed grand jury documents in the Epstein case referenced former President Donald Trump, a longtime associate of Epstein.
Patel, whose personalized notepad labeled “Director Patel” was caught on camera, appeared to steel himself for the confrontation. The visible notes, written in blue pen and apparently meant as self-motivation, read: “Good fight with Swalwell. Hold the line. Brush off their attacks. Rise above next line of partisan attacks.” The internet, however, was not kind. Social media users lampooned the pep-talk, with one X (formerly Twitter) user jeering, “Lmfao he’s writing words of affirmation to himself,” and another quipping, “This reads like the pep talk I give myself before every holiday with my family.” The ridicule only intensified as images of the notepad spread, with critics deriding the perceived vanity of the custom stationery.
But the spectacle of the handwritten notes was only the tip of the iceberg. The congressional hearings themselves were a cauldron of accusations and deflections. Rep. Swalwell accused Patel of “hiding child pedophiles” and playing a “cute shell game” with the Epstein files, prompting Patel to retort, “Your fixation on this matter and baseless accusations that I’m hiding child pedophiles is disgusting.” The exchange devolved into a shouting match, with Swalwell labeling Patel’s evasiveness a “consciousness of guilt,” and Patel firing back, “I’m going to borrow your terminology and call bulls*** on your entire career in Congress. It has been a disgrace to the American people.”
Patel, who once served as a GOP staffer on the Intelligence Committee and has a history of labeling political opponents as “deep state” actors in his book Government Gangsters, faced bipartisan skepticism—not only over the Epstein case but also for his stewardship of the FBI’s response to the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Critics pointed to what they described as a chaotic and ego-driven approach, noting that while law enforcement scrambled to identify and apprehend Kirk’s alleged killer, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, Patel was dining at the exclusive Rao’s restaurant in New York City.
Patel’s social media activity during the Kirk investigation added to the confusion. He posted conflicting updates about Robinson’s status, first claiming the suspect was in custody, then stating he had been released, all within a 90-minute window. Ultimately, Robinson was taken into custody after his own father turned him in—rather than as a result of an FBI manhunt, as Patel had suggested. The Utah Department of Public Safety contradicted Patel’s narrative, clarifying that authorities had already attempted to identify the suspect using facial recognition before jointly deciding to release security footage.
Patel’s leadership style also drew harsh criticism from within law enforcement ranks. Christopher O’Leary, a former FBI counterterrorism official, told NBC News, “He’s got zero leadership experience and capabilities.” Even some senior Trump administration members reportedly urged Patel to stay out of the public eye during the investigation, arguing that his presence would only distract agents from their work. Nevertheless, Patel flew to Utah to appear at a news conference, where he stood silently at the podium—an act one former senior FBI official described as counterproductive: “No serious director would show up at this stage. They can’t help. They can only distract. Every agent needed to support the visit is an agent not available to work the case.”
Patel’s congressional testimony on Epstein, however, generated the most outrage. According to The Daily Beast, Patel repeatedly insisted there was “no credible information, none… that [Epstein] trafficked to other individuals,” a claim he made to both Republican Sen. John Kennedy and Rep. Thomas Massie. This assertion stunned survivors of Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. In a joint statement provided to CNN’s Jake Tapper, twelve of Epstein and Maxwell’s victims said they were “shocked” by Patel’s testimony and were “struggling” to understand its meaning. “Even the limited information that has been made public includes accounts such as Virginia Giuffre’s report that Epstein trafficked her to other individuals besides himself,” the statement read. Giuffre, who died by suicide in April at age 41, was one of the most prominent voices against Epstein, alleging that he introduced her to Prince Andrew (who later settled out of court without admitting liability).
The survivors’ statement went further, noting that during witness interviews with the FBI, victims had named at least 20 other men they were trafficked to, as Rep. Massie highlighted during the hearing. The group criticized Patel for relying on unnamed officials from previous administrations who had deemed these reports not credible, pointing out, “He has not read the reports himself; he has not spoken to the victims himself; and yet he plans to defer to unnamed officials from prior administrations who treated the reports as not credible?” The survivors also underscored that many victims and witnesses had still not been interviewed by the FBI, even as of September 2025.
Patel, for his part, deflected bipartisan questions about Trump’s connections to Epstein and instead blamed previous administrations—including those that served during Trump’s first term—for the lack of new revelations. The controversy comes against the backdrop of years of speculation about Epstein’s death, which was officially ruled a suicide in 2019 while he awaited trial on sex trafficking charges. Trump, a known associate of Epstein, had promised during his re-election campaign to release the FBI’s files on the case. Yet in July 2025, the administration announced that no “client list” had been found and reaffirmed the suicide ruling, fueling bipartisan calls for greater transparency.
As the hearings concluded, Patel’s testimony and leadership remained under fierce scrutiny. The FBI declined to comment on the survivors’ statement, and the Department of Justice offered no additional response. Meanwhile, the online and political backlash showed no signs of abating, with Patel’s every move—down to his personalized notepad—serving as fodder for critics and a symbol of a leadership style many see as out of touch and embattled.
The week’s events leave Patel facing not just questions from Congress and survivors, but a crisis of public confidence that may be even harder to brush off than partisan attacks in a hearing room.
