Three former senior FBI officials—Timothy Driscoll, Steven Jensen, and Spencer Evans—filed a lawsuit against FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi, alleging their terminations were politically motivated and ordered by the White House and Department of Justice.
The lawsuit, reported by NPR and MSNBC, claims Patel admitted the firings targeted agents involved in investigations related to President Donald Trump, citing pressure from superiors to secure his own position. According to the suit, Patel told Driscoll, “The FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it,” and acknowledged that firing agents for their work on Trump-related cases violated FBI protections against retaliation, potentially exposing him to legal liability.
The plaintiffs, who include Driscoll (former acting deputy FBI director), Jensen (former assistant director of the Washington field office), and Evans (former special agent in charge of the Las Vegas field office), seek a federal judge’s ruling to nullify their terminations, a “name-clearing hearing,” and reinstatement.
The lawsuit details specific instances of alleged political interference, including pressure from Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino and Emil Bove, a former acting deputy attorney general, to target agents involved in high-profile investigations.
Allegations of Political Retaliation
The lawsuit alleges that Patel informed Driscoll that all FBI employees linked to Trump-related investigations, including the Jack Smith and Robert Mueller special counsel probes, would be fired regardless of their retirement status.
One named agent, Walt Giardina, was targeted for his work on these probes, despite a strong reputation for investigating both Democrats and Republicans in public corruption cases. The suit claims Bongino ordered Jensen to fire Giardina specifically at the Trump White House’s behest.
Further, the lawsuit describes a vetting process for Driscoll’s potential role as acting deputy FBI director, during which he was asked about his voting history, including whether he supported Democrats or Kamala Harris in 2024, and his views on the Mar-a-Lago classified documents search.
Driscoll declined to answer questions he deemed politically inappropriate, but was appointed after assurances from Bove and former FBI agent Michael Clark. However, the suit alleges Bove later pressured Driscoll and acting deputy director Robert Kissane to provide a list of all FBI agents involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack investigations.
Despite warnings from Driscoll that publicizing such a list could endanger agents, Bove insisted, citing his authority and alleging “cultural rot” within the FBI. After consulting FBI legal counsel, Driscoll and Kissane complied.
Additional Claims and FBI Priorities
The lawsuit also highlights Bongino’s focus on investigations with political significance, including the January 6 pipe bomb case, the Roe v. Wade decision leak, and the 2023 White House cocaine incident.
According to the suit, Bongino, a former Secret Service agent and pro-Trump podcaster, prioritized these cases in media appearances and social media posts, raising concerns from Jensen about an overemphasis on online engagement over substantive investigative work. The plaintiffs argue this focus compromised the FBI’s impartiality and operational integrity.
The allegations contrast with Patel’s Senate confirmation testimony, where he promised that “all FBI employees will be protected against political retribution.”
The lawsuit contends that his private admissions to Driscoll about the illegality of the firings contradict his public statements, raising questions about the FBI’s independence under his leadership.
Context and Responses
The lawsuit emerges amid heightened scrutiny of the FBI’s role in politically sensitive investigations, particularly those involving Trump, such as the Mueller probe, the January 6 investigation, and the Mar-a-Lago search. The plaintiffs argue their firings reflect a broader effort to purge the FBI of agents perceived as disloyal to the Trump administration, undermining the agency’s nonpartisan mission.
The FBI declined to comment on the lawsuit, and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to inquiries.
The case could have significant implications for the FBI’s internal policies and public trust in federal law enforcement.
Supporters of the plaintiffs argue the firings violate protections against retaliatory actions, while critics of the lawsuit may view it as resistance to necessary reforms within an agency some believe has been politicized. As the legal process unfolds, the court will determine whether the terminations were lawful and whether the plaintiffs’ claims of political interference hold merit.
