Three former senior FBI officials have filed a sweeping federal lawsuit that alleges a campaign of politically motivated firings orchestrated by top Trump administration officials, including FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi. The suit, submitted in Washington on September 10, 2025, by Brian J. Driscoll Jr., Steven J. Jensen, and Spencer L. Evans, paints a disturbing portrait of a bureau under siege, where political loyalty tests and social media bullying replaced decades of institutional independence and due process.
According to The New York Times and SAN, the 68-page complaint accuses the Trump White House of exerting extraordinary influence over the FBI. The plaintiffs allege that their dismissals last month were not the result of job performance, but a direct response to pressure from the White House and relentless attacks by MAGA loyalists online. The lawsuit asserts, "Patel not only acted unlawfully but deliberately chose to prioritize politicizing the FBI over protecting the American people." It further claims that Patel targeted anyone connected to previous criminal investigations into former President Trump, despite his confirmation testimony pledging that no one would be punished simply for doing their jobs.
At the heart of the suit is the charge that the Trump administration, through figures like White House adviser Stephen Miller and Justice Department official Emil Bove III, ran roughshod over the FBI’s century-old traditions of independence. The complaint describes Patel as a "middleman executing the orders of top Justice Department and White House officials," with Miller’s influence at times eclipsing even those of Senate-confirmed leaders. Bove is quoted in the lawsuit as saying he was under pressure from Miller to see "symmetrical action at the FBI as had been happening at DOJ," making clear that personnel actions like reassignments and terminations were demanded to align the bureau with the president’s agenda.
The lawsuit details a series of episodes that the plaintiffs say exemplify the politicization of the FBI. Driscoll, who briefly served as acting director before Patel’s appointment, recounts being subjected to a political loyalty test during his vetting process. He says he was asked about his voting history, whether he had supported Democratic candidates, and even if he had voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. According to the suit, Patel told Driscoll that as long as he "was not prolific on social media, did not donate to the Democratic Party, and did not vote for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, the ‘vetting’ would not be an issue."
In another bizarre episode, Trump aides reportedly made a clerical error in publicly announcing Driscoll as acting FBI director, only to refuse to correct it even when it meant the wrong person was named to one of the government’s most powerful posts. The lawsuit claims that Driscoll insisted he would only take the job if he was not required to fire employees without due process—a condition soon tested by Bove’s pressure to dismiss agents involved in sensitive investigations, especially those tied to the January 6 Capitol attack.
Jensen, who was appointed to run the Washington field office, expressed alarm at what he called the "intense focus" of Patel’s deputy, Dan Bongino, on boosting his social media profile rather than managing FBI operations. The lawsuit accuses Bongino and Patel of being more interested in online engagement and "handing out oversized ‘challenge coins’" than in the bureau’s day-to-day work. Jensen also faced public attacks from Trump supporters for his prior involvement in domestic terrorism investigations, particularly those related to January 6. Initially, Patel suggested Jensen sue his critics, but he later fired Jensen, citing "failure to execute and perform requested tasks, resulting in an unreasonable delay in the execution of FBI priorities."
Evans, formerly the special agent in charge of the Las Vegas field office, was reportedly dismissed after a former agent publicized his denial of religious exemptions for the Covid-19 vaccine. The lawsuit argues that this and other firings were driven by far-right criticism and misinformation circulated on social media, which was then forwarded to top White House aides, including Miller. The complaint suggests that decorated career agents like Walter Giardina and Chris Meyer were targeted because they represented the institutional values Patel and Bongino allegedly disregarded. In a particularly cruel episode, Giardina was fired while caring for his wife, who was dying of adrenal cancer, a decision the plaintiffs describe as "appalling cruelty."
The lawsuit is replete with accounts of pressure to create lists of agents involved in politically sensitive cases, especially those who investigated Trump or the Capitol attack. Driscoll and another senior agent, Robert Kissane, reportedly tried to resist these demands, seeking to "provide stability for ongoing FBI operations" in the face of what they saw as a "campaign of retribution." The suit claims that these efforts won quiet support within the bureau, with agents even circulating parody videos casting Driscoll as a Batman-like hero and Bove as a villain—a detail that, according to the lawsuit, irritated Bove.
Throughout, the plaintiffs argue that their firings violated internal FBI rules, federal civil service protections, and their constitutional rights to free speech and due process. They allege that Patel knew the summary firings were "likely illegal and that he could be sued and later deposed." The complaint seeks to have their terminations declared a "legal nullity," requests a "name-clearing hearing," and asks for reinstatement to their former positions.
The FBI and Justice Department have not commented on the lawsuit. The case now heads to federal court in Washington, raising profound questions about the politicization of America’s top law enforcement agency and the future of its independence. The plaintiffs’ experiences, as detailed in their court filing, add to a broader pattern of retributive firings and demotions across federal agencies during the Trump administration, with the FBI singled out for especially harsh treatment due to the president’s longstanding resentment over past investigations into his conduct.
While the outcome of the case remains uncertain, the allegations have already sparked intense debate over the proper boundaries of political influence in federal law enforcement. As the legal battle unfolds, the nation will be watching closely to see whether the courts will reaffirm the principles of due process and institutional independence that have long defined the FBI—or whether, as the plaintiffs allege, those principles have been dangerously undermined.
