Ex-FBI agents assigned to Trump cases sue Kash Patel over ‘unlawful’ firings
Two former FBI special agents who say they played minimal roles in the investigation that led to criminal charges against President Donald Trump have filed a lawsuit against FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi, alleging their “unlawful” firings violate the U.S. Constitution.
Patel has regularly fired FBI special agents who were linked to Trump investigations. The latest round of firings took place last month, shortly after Patel appeared in viral locker room videos drinking beer and celebrating with the U.S. men’s hockey team after their victory over Canada at the Winter Olympics in Italy. Trump expressed his displeasure with Patel, NBC News reported.
The FBI declined to comment on the pending litigation. Patel has widely said those who were fired were a weapon for law enforcement.
In a termination letter for one of the agents, the FBI said the agent had “demonstrated poor judgment and a lack of impartiality in the performance of his duties, leading to a political militarization of the government,” according to the lawsuit.
“Arctic Frost” was the code name given to the investigation into the alleged criminal plot to overturn Trump’s 2020 election defeat. It was opened in early 2022 and was overseen by former special counsel Jack Smith following his appointment that year. Trump was indicted on four counts in August 2023.
After Trump won the 2024 presidency, Smith decided to dismiss the case due to the Justice Department’s long-standing policy that sitting presidents cannot face charges. But Smith maintained that his office had obtained “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that Trump engaged in a “criminal scheme” to overturn his 2020 election defeat. Trump demanded that Smith be “investigated and put in jail.”
The two officers who filed the complaint Thursday were both fired late last year and began the litigation anonymously, saying publishing their names “would put them and their families at immediate risk of doxing, SWAT, harassment and physical violence.” One of the former special agents “has previously been the subject of threatening posts on social media” after the release of operational documents containing his name.
Their lawyers wrote in a filing that publishing their names “would pose a new threat to plaintiffs – not only by harming their employment prospects, but rather endangering their physical safety and mental health.”
The lawsuit says the two former FBI special agents “fully adhered to FBI and DOJ policies and procedures” and “performed their law enforcement duties without bias or political motive.”
John Doe 1’s “contributions to Arctic Frost were largely administrative and ministerial,” the lawsuit states. The lawsuit says he was preparing to go to a Halloween party with his two children when he received a call telling him to report to the main Washington field office in DC.
After his work on the Trump investigation, John Doe 1 then began fraud investigations and had “no opportunity to escalate these matters to other agents,” the lawsuit says. He fears these cases will be lost, forgotten or dismissed now.
John Doe 2, a 2018 graduate of the FBI Academy, was “never one of Arctic Frost’s primary or primary agents” and instead “played a supporting role” in the investigation, according to the lawsuit. He returned to his unit, which focused on public corruption involving elections and local D.C. officials, in June 2023, before Trump was indicted.
John Doe 2 also served on the Crisis Negotiation Team at the FBI’s Washington Field Office and was training for a SWAT role, which required strenuous physical activity. The lawsuit says he “once even received a ‘fist’ from Patel when the director saw him exercising on a holiday” at the FBI headquarters gym.
The former FBI special agents claim their firings violated their First Amendment rights because the firings were based on their perceived political beliefs and violated their Fifth Amendment rights because they were denied due process. The government stigmatized former FBI special agents and damaged their reputation by “suggesting that they were anything other than loyal, apolitical members of law enforcement,” the lawsuit says.
