In a dramatic legal challenge that has drawn national attention, a dozen former FBI agents have filed a federal civil lawsuit in Washington, D.C., seeking to reclaim their jobs after being fired earlier this year. The agents allege that their termination was not only unjust but also politically motivated, stemming from a decision they made on June 4, 2020: kneeling during a tense racial justice protest in the nation’s capital, just days after the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police.
The lawsuit, submitted on Monday, December 8, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, names FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Pam Bondi, the FBI, and the Justice Department as defendants. The agents, who remain anonymous in the court documents and are referred to as Jane and John Does, argue that their kneeling was a tactical move to defuse a potentially explosive confrontation—not a political statement, as some have claimed.
According to CBS News, the agents contend they were deployed to downtown Washington on that June day as part of a roughly 22-member squad. Their mission: to provide a visible law enforcement presence amid nationwide protests following Floyd’s death. However, the lawsuit claims the agents were ill-equipped for the volatile environment, lacking riot shields, gas masks, helmets, or other tactical gear typically used for crowd control. "Plaintiffs had been informed that the purpose of the deployment was to show a visible law enforcement presence, and they wore vests marked 'FBI' and carried their firearms," the suit states. "But they were not properly prepared or instructed to conduct crowd control operations."
As the agents patrolled the streets, they found themselves confronted by a crowd that was both hostile and diverse—some individuals were angry, while others were families with young children. The situation quickly escalated as the crowd recognized the agents as FBI and began to chant, "take a knee," a gesture that had become widely associated with solidarity for Floyd and the broader racial justice movement. The agents closest to the crowd were the first to kneel, hoping to calm the agitated group. The remaining agents soon followed suit, believing that kneeling was the "most tactically sound means to prevent violence and to maintain order," according to the lawsuit cited by the Associated Press (AP).
The tactic, as described in the legal complaint, worked. The crowd dispersed peacefully, no shots were fired, and the agents "saved American lives that day." The lawsuit even draws a dramatic parallel, stating, "Plaintiffs were performing their duties as FBI Special Agents, employing reasonable de-escalation to prevent a potentially deadly confrontation with American citizens: a Washington Massacre that could have rivaled the Boston Massacre in 1770."
Despite the apparent success of their actions, the agents say their careers quickly unraveled. After photographs of the kneeling incident surfaced, the FBI launched an internal review. The then-deputy director determined that the agents had acted without political motive and recommended no disciplinary action. The Justice Department’s inspector general reached a similar conclusion, expressing concern that the agents had been placed in a precarious situation without proper support.
However, the climate at the FBI shifted dramatically in February 2025, when Kash Patel took over as director. According to the lawsuit, Patel initiated a new disciplinary inquiry and removed several kneeling agents from supervisory positions. By September, the agents received terse termination letters, stating they were being dismissed for "unprofessional conduct and a lack of impartiality in carrying out duties, leading to the political weaponization of government." The lawsuit contends, "Defendants dismissed Plaintiffs in a partisan effort to retaliate against FBI employees that they perceived to be sympathetic to President Trump’s political opponents." The complaint further alleges that the terminations were carried out swiftly, "to avoid creating any further administrative record that would reveal their actions as vindictive and unjustified."
One of the plaintiffs, known as Jane Doe 5 in the lawsuit, was reportedly removed from her position as Deputy Assistant Director overseeing counterintelligence at FBI Headquarters at Patel’s direction, specifically because she kneeled on June 4, 2020. The former agents argue that Patel’s actions were motivated by "partisan animus," pointing to his book, Government Gangsters, in which Patel advocates for removing government employees who might "undermine the president’s agenda."
The agents’ legal team, represented by the Washington Litigation Group, is seeking not only reinstatement but also back pay, monetary damages, and expungement of any personnel records related to their firing. Attorney Mary Dohrmann, representing the plaintiffs, told CBS News, "Internal FBI processes are being subverted in a way that makes us all less safe." The lawsuit also asks the court to declare the firings unconstitutional.
This legal action is just the latest in a series of lawsuits challenging what critics describe as a "personnel purge" under Patel’s leadership at the FBI. Other former agents have also filed suits, alleging political retribution—some for their roles in investigations involving Trump or his allies, and at least one for displaying an LGBTQ+ flag at work. According to the AP, the lawsuit asserts that these moves have "roiled the FBI, targeting both top-ranking supervisors and line agents, as Patel has worked to reshape the nation’s premier law enforcement agency."
The Justice Department and FBI have declined to comment on the pending litigation. The fired agents, many of whom are counterterrorism specialists with over 15 years of experience, say their only goal on June 4, 2020, was to prevent violence and uphold public safety. "The Special Agents selected the option that prevented casualties while maintaining their law enforcement mission. Each Plaintiff kneeled for apolitical tactical reasons to defuse a volatile situation, not as an expressive political act," the lawsuit insists.
As the case moves forward, it raises profound questions about the intersection of law enforcement, politics, and protest in modern America. Can a gesture intended to save lives be so easily reframed as a political act? And what does it mean for the nation’s top law enforcement agency if its employees fear that tactical decisions made in the field could cost them their careers—depending on who sits at the top?
For now, the fired agents await their day in court, hoping to clear their names and return to the work they say they carried out with integrity, even in the most trying of times.
