Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks during a ceremonial swearing-in of Kash Patel, President Donald Trump”s new director of the FBI, Friday, Feb. 21, 2025, in the Indian Treaty Room at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus in Washington (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein).
Three veteran FBI officials, longtime agents, and “experts in preventing terrorism and reducing violent crime” who claim they were swept up in a White House purge and unlawfully fired in August for not showing “political loyalty” to President Donald Trump have filed a lawsuit against Director Kash Patel and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, asking a federal judge for immediate reinstatement and not to greenlight the government’s degradation of the “country’s national security.”
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accused Patel, the FBI, Bondi, the DOJ, and the Executive Office of the President of violating the plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights, and sought reinstatement plus backpay for former Acting Director of the FBI Brian Driscoll, Jr., former Assistant Director in Charge Steven Jensen, and former Special Agent in Charge Spencer Evans. While Driscoll and Jensen are represented by Sandy Hook families’ lawyer Christopher Mattei, former federal prosecutor Margaret Donovan, and Lisa Cook and Letitia James attorney Abbe Lowell, Evans is represented by Ukraine whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid.
The plaintiffs’ complaint began by claiming that some proof they were fired as part of a “campaign of retribution” and punished for not showing “sufficient personal and political loyalty” could be found in an encounter Driscoll had with Patel on Aug. 6. The suit alleged that Patel “admitted” that higher-ups ordered him to fire “anyone who they identified as having worked on a criminal investigation against President Donald J. Trump” and that his own job depended on it. Trump, Patel allegedly said, “hasn’t forgotten” that they “tried to put” him “in jail.”
“He explained he had to fire the people his superiors told him to fire, because his ability to keep his own job depended on the removal of the agents who worked on cases involving the President. Patel explained that there was nothing he or Driscoll could do to stop these or any other firings, because ‘the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it,'” the complaint said. “Driscoll indicated his belief that Patel’s reference to his superiors meant DOJ and the White House, and Patel did not deny it.”
The lawsuit further claimed that although Patel “knew” the firings were “likely illegal and that he could be sued and later deposed,” he moved forward with the ousters anyway, thereby rendering his confirmation hearing assurances against carrying out political revenge on Trump’s behalf empty. The filing included an excerpt of Patel’s representation that “no one will be terminated for case assignments.”
In a return to the scene for Emil Bove, Driscoll further recounted a conversation he had with the former Trump criminal defense attorney, before he became principal associate deputy attorney general and an eventual Trump lifetime appointee to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The suit said Driscoll told Bove he was uncomfortable with a political line of questioning that White House transition team member Paul Ingrassia subjected him to during an interview for a “high-level position at the FBI” about who he voted for, whether he thought FBI agents who “stormed” Mar-a-Lago to probe Trump should be “held accountable,” what his thoughts on DEI were, when he started supporting Trump, and if he “voted for a Democrat in the last five elections[.]”
The suit alleged that Patel, before he was confirmed as director, had told Driscoll in advance that he should pass the interview provided that Driscoll wasn’t a Democratic Party donor or voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris.
“Driscoll did not respond to those comments. In total, the conversation between Patel and Driscoll lasted less than five minutes,” the suit claimed. “Prior to this call, Driscoll had never met or spoken with Patel.”
Bove, hearing Driscoll’s concerns and knowing he “failed” the interview, managed to change Ingrassia’s mind that Driscoll wasn’t “based out” enough, according to court documents.
“Driscoll told Bove that he wanted nothing to do with the entire situation if it required him to violate the law, and that not only was he apolitical by nature, but that it was essential for the FBI to remain apolitical,” the suit continued.
Driscoll said that he nonetheless went on to serve as acting director of the FBI — instead of the acting deputy director job he thought he was getting — for roughly one month from Trump’s second inauguration as president, apparently explained by a “clerical error.” From there, Bove, while acting deputy attorney general, commenced a purge in earnest of FBI agents assigned to Jan. 6 cases and allegedly accused Driscoll of leaking that to the press, which he denied.
After Patel was confirmed in February, the suit said, Driscoll would not submit to his ask to “make a list of poor leaders within the FBI” but said he “instead intended to take some leave to spend time with his family, to which Patel stated that he understood and supported him.”
Driscoll returned in March and was reassigned as FBI assistant director for the Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG). By early August, the administration was exerting pressure on Driscoll to force out FBI Supervisory Special Agent Chris Meyer, a military veteran, based on “incorrect[]” social media posts from “various online personalities” among Trump’s base that wrongly said Meyer “had been a signatory to the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit and was now Patel’s personal pilot.”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox
“In fact, Meyer was not the signatory to the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit,” the suit said. “He was not the case agent for the investigation concerning President Trump’s handling of classified documents and he did not participate in the search of Mar-a-Lago.”
The plaintiff claimed that on Aug. 5, days before he was fired, he was told by Patel that Meyer was on the outs anyway.
“Specifically, Driscoll stated that summarily firing Meyer would be illegal based on his military veteran status and would also violate all established FBI policies for adverse actions against personnel,” the complaint went on. “Patel responded that Meyer would be fired by Friday, August 8, 2025, and that there was nothing either Patel or Driscoll could say or do that would stop it.”
Patel then allegedly admitted that the FBI would lose in court if sued over this. Three days later, Driscoll was fired by Patel for “fail[ing] to execute and perform requested tasks and issued communications to the FBI workforce that undermined the leadership of the Department of Justice,” allegedly engaging in “insubordination within the Bureau and weaken[ing] workforce morale” and failing to “timely respond to unapproved disclosure to the media of law enforcement sensitive information.”
Steven Jensen, who worked on Jan. 6 cases, similarly alleged that he was pressured in May by former Fox News host turned Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino to fire military veteran and Special Agent Walter Giardina “based on nothing more than unfounded allegations that were ‘just out there[.]” Like Driscoll, Jensen was then fired in August.
And Spencer Evans claims his firing letter cited “a lack of reasonableness and overzealousness in the implementation of COVID-19 protocols and policies” while deputy assistant director of the Human Resources Division (HRD) during the pandemic. From the suit, claiming there’s some evidence Patel had it out for Evans before the former was confirmed FBI director:
Evans eventually moved on from HRD and transferred to become the SAC of the FBI’s Las Vegas Field Office in 2022. Unbeknownst to him at the time, a former FBI Special Agent who had been involuntarily discharged had been regularly posting about Evans on his social media pages and podcast. Shortly after January 2024, Evans learned that this ex-agent had been airing his grievances on social media against Evans and other FBI leaders since at least 2022 and had developed a close relationship with Patel.
Since the inauguration, this ex-agent has claimed that he had advised Patel prior to his confirmation to fire Evans as soon as he was confirmed and that Patel had agreed. For example, he posted a screenshot of a text message that purports to show a text message between the ex-agent and then-nominee Patel where he stated, “THIS guy is the dude in charge of HR who PERSONALLY denied my request to not take a Covid test every 2 days in order to keep my job. And removed me. Good morning.” According to the posted communication, a contact named “Kash” replied, “He’s f—ed.”
In statements shared with Law&Crime, Driscoll, Jensen, and Evans each said the lawsuit was about rooting out politicization of the FBI.
“The men and women of the FBI make countless sacrifices to accomplish the Bureau’s mission: protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution,” Driscoll said. “That’s why it is necessary to detail the politically-motivated actions that led to our firings. The American people deserve an FBI made up of professionals who can serve righteously and confidently, with no fear of inappropriately applied pressure or wrongful termination.”
Jensen added that he aim to “champion the values of truth and justice for those who continue to serve in the FBI” and “re-establish the highest standards of justice and ensure that every American, particularly those entrusted with immense authority of federal law enforcement, respects and obeys the law.”
Evans likewise stated that “Americans should demand FBI leaders who make decisions based solely on the facts of an investigation and never on the desired outcome of one.”
The defendants have not yet responded to the lawsuit, and the FBI has reportedly declined to comment.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers, however, said their clients were simply “dismissed because they prioritized duty over politics.”
“This lawsuit is not just about their rights as individuals. It is about protecting the institutional integrity of the FBI and ensuring that law enforcement can protect the American people without being targeted for partisan retribution,” the lawyers said. “Upholding the Constitution and the FBI’s independence is essential to our national security and democratic principles.”
Read the lawsuit here.
