Trump's Appointees Fired Agents Who Investigated Him, Then Boasted None Remained

On March 26, 2026, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche boasted that not a single federal agent who had anything to do with prosecuting Donald Trump was still at the FBI.¹ That January, Trump had publicly told his FBI Director: "Kash better get them out, NOW!"² Three fired agents say the purge cost them their careers, income, and retirement security.¹ This was federal law enforcement removing the people who had investigated the President, with his public backing.¹²

Trump Demanded Removal; Patel Claimed Credit

Trump appointed Kash Patel to lead the FBI and Pam Bondi to lead the Justice Department.¹ On January 20, 2025, he signed Executive Order 14147, which called for a review of federal enforcement agencies for what he called weaponization, not for firings.³

On January 12, 2026, Trump reposted an article about the FBI's 2020-election investigation of him, called the agents "total Scum," and told Patel what to do.²

Truth Social post, archived by Trump's Truth²

Kash better get them out, NOW!

Patel answered him in a post reproduced in the fired agents' complaint.¹

Truth Social post quoted in Garman v. Patel¹

Thank you Mr. President. Under your leadership, this FBI found the corrupt actors and terminated their employment last year. America voted for the end of weaponized law enforcement

Blanche made the reach of the purge explicit at the Conservative Political Action Conference on March 26, 2026.¹

CPAC remarks quoted in Garman v. Patel¹

Director Patel has cleaned house there too. There isn’t a single man or woman with a gun, federal agent, still in that organization that had anything to do with the prosecution of President Trump.

Patel had promised senators under oath on January 30, 2025 that there would be no politicization at the FBI.⁴ The Driscoll complaint also reproduces Patel's specific confirmation promise that "no one will be terminated for case assignments."⁵ By early 2026, he and Blanche were publicly celebrating the removal of agents who had worked on Trump's investigation and prosecution.¹

Former senior FBI official Brian Driscoll alleges in his own lawsuit that, around August 5, 2025, Patel told him that Patel's job depended on firing agents who had worked on cases against Trump, and acknowledged that the summary firings were likely illegal.⁵ Driscoll says he understood Patel's superiors to mean the Justice Department and the White House, and that Patel did not deny it.⁵ Driscoll alleges that Bove told him in January 2025 that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller was pressing for FBI reassignments, removals and terminations like those at DOJ.⁵

The People Behind the Count

The Justice Department fired lawyers from Special Counsel Jack Smith's office in January 2025; the FBI later fired agents who worked on Smith's investigation.¹ Bondi's February 5 memorandum set up a Weaponization Working Group and singled out Smith and his staff, accusing them of spending more than $50 million targeting Trump.⁶

Jamie Garman, Blaire Toleman, and Michelle Ball worked on Smith's investigation of alleged interference with the 2020 election.¹ The FBI fired Ball on October 7, 2025, Garman on October 31, and Toleman on November 4, according to the complaint they filed on March 31, 2026.¹ It alleges that more than fifty FBI employees were removed without due process.¹

The complaint says Toleman spent three months unemployed and lost health coverage for herself and her family.¹ Ball spent four months unemployed before taking a contractor job with lower pay and fewer benefits, it says.¹

The FBI's termination letters, reproduced in the complaint, accused the agents of poor judgment and partiality leading to political weaponization.¹ The agents deny it and say they received neither notice of charges nor a chance to respond.¹ They argue that FBI rules and constitutional due process protected their career jobs.¹ As of October 10, 2026, the docket lists a motion to dismiss and an October 21, 2026 motion hearing before Judge Jia M. Cobb, and no decision on those claims.⁷

Loyalty Questions and Exceptions for Patel's Aides

The New York Times reported that FBI interviews and polygraph tests asked senior employees whether they had said anything negative about Patel.⁸ Driscoll's complaint recounts a January 2025 vetting call in which he was asked how he voted, when he began supporting Trump, and whether he had voted for a Democrat in the last five elections.⁵ He says he refused to answer.⁵ The complaint also says Bove told the interviewer that FBI agents could not discuss their political views in their professional capacity and got the adverse assessment reversed so Driscoll could serve in an acting leadership role.⁵

ProPublica reported that Patel granted polygraph waivers to Deputy Director Dan Bongino, congressional liaison Marshall Yates, and personal assistant Nicole Rucker, who then obtained high-level security clearances.⁹ Yates and Rucker had not cleared their exams, ProPublica reported; it could not determine whether Bongino took one or what the result was, and said his waiver could have been preemptive.⁹ The FBI denied that any of the three had failed a polygraph and said it followed all personnel-security laws and procedures.⁹

The personnel actions reached past Trump's own case, to lawyers, analysts and agents who challenged evidence, a disclosure plan or the handling of an investigation.^101112131415

Bove Invoked Trump's Policy and Sent Prosecutors Home

On February 13, 2025, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove wrote to Danielle Sassoon, who had refused his instruction to dismiss the Eric Adams corruption case.¹⁰ His letter accepted her resignation and placed the prosecutors principally responsible for the case on administrative leave pending investigations, and it expressly linked both steps to her refusal.¹⁰ The prosecutors would keep full salary and benefits, the letter said, and the leave was neither disciplinary nor an adverse action.¹⁰ Bove wrote that his weaponization finding followed a policy set by Trump, and that her office had no authority to contest it.¹⁰

Reuveni Told the Court; Bondi Attacked Him

The Justice Department fired Erez Reuveni on April 11, 2025 after he told a court that Kilmar Abrego Garcia's deportation to El Salvador was an error, according to his protected whistleblower disclosure.¹¹ He had spent nearly fifteen years at the Department and was overseeing more than one hundred immigration lawyers, the disclosure says.¹¹

Trump criticized the admission himself: the disclosure reproduces his public statement that the lawyer who called the deportation a mistake "should not have said that."¹¹ Bondi and Blanche accused Reuveni of failing to follow instructions and failing to advocate zealously for the government's position, the disclosure records.¹¹ Reuveni answers that his statements followed the government's own records and his duties to the court.¹¹

The disclosure also says Reuveni refused to sign an appeal brief because its arguments lacked support in the law or record. Someone else filed it at 1:41 a.m. on April 5; less than seven hours later, DOJ placed him on administrative leave for alleged failure to follow instructions and advocate zealously.¹¹

Reuveni alleges that, at a March 14, 2025 meeting about deportation flights, Bove said DOJ would need to consider telling the courts "fuck you" and ignoring an order blocking the removals. Reuveni says he nevertheless left the meeting understanding that DOJ would tell DHS to follow all court orders.¹¹

On July 10, 2025, Bondi publicly called Reuveni a leaker asserting false claims.¹⁶ Her post addressed his broader allegations of court defiance: she denied that anyone had been asked to defy a court order, cited a D.C. Circuit stay in the Boasberg litigation, and said Reuveni had signed three briefs defending the Department's position.¹⁶

Cheung Refused to Claim Probable Cause

Denise Cheung headed the criminal division in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office and had spent more than twenty-four years at the Justice Department when she resigned on February 18, 2025.¹² Her letter, reproduced by NBC News, describes pressure to freeze accounts associated with a Biden-era contract.¹² Bove's office supplied language suggesting probable cause, and she rejected it as unsupported.¹²

Cheung did agree to a narrower step: the FBI sent a letter recommending a thirty-day freeze while officials investigated possible violations.¹² Interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin then demanded a second letter ordering the bank not to release funds.¹² She told him she lacked the legal authority to issue it, and he asked for her resignation, her letter says.¹²

A Justice Department spokesperson told NBC that examining potential waste was a basic request and that refusing it was a failure to follow the chain of command.¹² Cheung's letter puts the disagreement elsewhere: the evidence did not support the compulsory order Martin wanted.¹²

A Sentencing Memo, a Disclosure Warning, and Off-Duty Speech

NBC News, citing five people familiar with the situation, reported that the Department placed prosecutors Carlos Valdivia and Samuel White on leave after their sentencing memo described the January 6 attackers as a mob of rioters.¹⁷ The case involved weapons charges near Barack Obama's home, and the memo also noted that Trump had published Obama's purported address.¹⁷

ProPublica reported that Kacie Candela stopped the disclosure of an EEOC charge against UCLA, warning that disclosing it before a lawsuit would be a criminal misdemeanor.¹³ She was fired days later; at the time of the December 2025 report she was challenging the firing and declined to discuss it.¹³

NBC reported that Bondi fired paralegal Elizabeth Baxter on August 29, 2025, effective immediately, over alleged off-duty conduct toward National Guard troops.¹⁸ The Department confirmed the memo and alleged repeated vulgar gestures and shouting, which NBC had not independently confirmed.¹⁸

Two Analysts Removed From the Georgia Election Review

MS NOW reported on July 11, 2026 that the FBI fired two Atlanta intelligence analysts after they refused to take part in its investigation of Georgia's 2020 election.¹⁴ Three sources said the analysts believed the inquiry was unjustified under FBI and Justice Department policies and were escorted out.¹⁴ Patel had directed about 260 analysts nationwide to devote time to the investigation, the report said.¹⁴

MS NOW also reported that the search-warrant affidavit repeated fraud claims that Republican-led Georgia investigations had already debunked, and that a federal judge had rejected a related subpoena for election-worker information as unreasonable the week before.¹⁴

The FBI neither confirmed nor denied the firings to MS NOW; it said it investigates credible election allegations and expects employees to uphold its mission and standards.¹⁴

Counterterrorism Leaders Reassigned Over the Miller Investigation

CNN and Bloomberg Law reported that on September 25, 2026 the FBI removed Michael Burgwald and Courtland Rae from Washington counterterrorism leadership and reassigned them over an investigation involving Katie Miller, the wife of Trump adviser Stephen Miller.¹⁵¹⁹ CNN's sources said the investigators had found no terrorism connection and no basis for further FBI investigation.¹⁵ Both remained FBI employees, but former officials told Bloomberg Law the moves cost the office decades of counterterrorism experience.¹⁹

Washington FBI chief Darren Cox confirmed the removals, called them a field-office decision based on mission needs, and denied that Patel ordered them.¹⁵ The White House denied that the Millers interacted with the two officials and said FBI leaders had determined they were stifling investigations into serious threats.¹⁵ CBS later reported that John Anthony Proia III was indicted for allegedly cyberstalking Katie Miller.²⁰

While it was removing investigators, the administration cut the offices that investigate public corruption and sought more control over outside scrutiny of Justice Department lawyers.^21222324

Thirty-Six Corruption Lawyers Became Two

NOTUS reported on September 22, 2025 that the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section had fallen from thirty-six full-time lawyers to two.²¹ The section, founded in 1976, investigates corruption by public officials.²¹ NOTUS's sources said the cuts left it unable to advise the ninety-four U.S. attorneys' offices on building corruption cases, let alone prosecute new ones itself.²¹

In June 2025, NOTUS also reported, the Department suspended mandatory consultation with the section on campaign-finance, patronage and election-corruption matters.²¹ Separate consultation requirements stayed in place for investigations of members of Congress and their staff, and for indicting political candidates near elections.²¹

The Department told NOTUS it continued to investigate and prosecute public corruption rigorously.²¹ Older cases did continue, with reassigned lawyers doing double duty, and the section's work helped produce a six-year bribery sentence for Admiral Robert P. Burke.²¹ That success does not restore the capacity NOTUS's sources described losing.²¹

NPR reported in June 2025 that Patel's FBI disbanded its premier public-corruption squad, which had worked on investigations of Trump.²²

Scrutiny of DOJ Lawyers on DOJ's Terms

On March 5, 2026, Bondi's Department published a proposed rule giving the Attorney General first review of ethics allegations arising from the federal duties of current or former Justice Department attorneys.²³ The Department would ask state bars to suspend parallel proceedings, and the rule would direct it to act against interference if a bar refused.²³ The Department defended the proposal as protecting federal functions from state interference while ensuring its attorneys followed ethical standards.²³ As of October 7, 2026, the proposal was not part of the federal regulations.²⁵

A December 16, 2025 congressional letter also identified the March 2025 removal of Jeffrey Ragsdale, director of the Office of Professional Responsibility, which reviews allegations of professional misconduct.²⁶

Blanche's April 9, 2025 memorandum barred official participation in American Bar Association events and expressly linked the decision to the ABA's lawsuit against the government.²⁴ He defended it as stewardship of taxpayer funds and control over the Department's official speech.²⁴ Employees in policy-determining, policymaking or policy-advocating positions needed approval from their component head and the Deputy Attorney General for any ABA event or publication, and could not hold ABA leadership positions or renew memberships.²⁴ Other career employees could still attend and keep their memberships on their own time and money.²⁴

Trump's appointees did the firing.¹ Two questions remain: whether the President's power excuses it, and how much of it is his.

The Power and the Defense

The strongest defense is that Trump and his appointees were correcting politicized law enforcement and exercising authority over prosecution and executive personnel.³⁶²⁷²⁸ In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court held that Trump was absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for his alleged discussions with Justice Department officials, including requests for investigations alleged to be shams.²⁷ It recognized the Executive's exclusive authority and absolute discretion over federal prosecutions, and it barred inquiry into presidential motives when distinguishing official from unofficial conduct for criminal immunity.²⁷ Myers v. United States upheld presidential removal of an executive officer appointed with Senate consent; it also recognized Congress's power to regulate removal of inferior officers whose appointment it vests in department heads.²⁸

Those powers are real.²⁷²⁸ But criminal immunity does not remove the Constitution's impeachment remedy: Article II, Section 4 makes the President and civil officers subject to impeachment and removal.²⁷²⁹ Hamilton described impeachable offenses as abuses or violations of public trust.³⁰ The House Judiciary Committee's 1974 abuse-of-power article against Nixon specifically charged misuse of the FBI and other executive personnel.³¹

The removal power also faces a pending test: the fired agents' suit, still undecided, alleges that using it against career employees violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights and FBI employment protections.¹

The administration's stated goal was to restore integrity and public confidence.⁶ No figure cited here shows whether either improved, and its leaders' accounts of success measure neither; they count the agents involved in Trump's prosecution who are gone.⁶¹ By the time of those boasts, NOTUS and NPR had reported that the Department's corruption section had fallen from thirty-six full-time lawyers to two and that the FBI had disbanded its public-corruption squad.²¹²² Law-enforcement leaders presented participation in the President's investigation as something to purge.¹

He Backed the Firings and Promoted Blanche

Trump's responsibility rests on his own review order, his public demand for removals, and his appointment of the leaders who carried them out.³²¹ Bove expressly invoked Trump's policy when sanctioning refusal in the Adams case.¹⁰ Driscoll alleges that Bove told him in January 2025 that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller was pressing for FBI reassignments, removals and terminations like those at DOJ. He also alleges that Patel later said his job depended on firings demanded by superiors Driscoll understood to include the White House; he does not describe a firing order he heard from Trump himself.⁵

Trump nominated Bove to the Third Circuit, and Bove's judicial commission issued on August 20, 2025.³² Reuters reported that Trump fired Bondi on April 2, 2026 amid frustration over the Epstein files and the pace of prosecutions against critics and adversaries he wanted charged.³³ Blanche, who celebrated the FBI purge that March, became Attorney General on August 10, 2026.¹³⁴

The same officials are at the center of three other episodes. Bove and Bondi directed investigation for potential prosecution of state and local officials who failed to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests.³⁵³⁶ ProPublica reported that Blanche dismantled DOJ's crypto-enforcement team while holding $159,000 to $485,000 in cryptocurrency.³⁷ He pledged not to participate personally and substantially, before divestment, in particular matters he knew would directly and predictably affect those holdings, unless he first obtained a written waiver.³⁸ Legal experts and former federal ethics officials told ProPublica his actions violated the agreement and conflict-of-interest law; Campaign Legal Center sought an OIG investigation into whether a violation occurred.³⁷³⁸ CLC acknowledged that Blanche's May and June 2025 divestments complied with his 90-day deadline; its allegation concerns his participation before divestment.³⁸ Congressional critics also identified two dropped criminal cases involving clients of Bondi's brother; their letter did not establish that his involvement caused the dismissals.²⁶

Trump's appointees fired investigators who worked on his prosecution, then celebrated it in public.¹ Trump demanded removals, and his FBI Director thanked him for his leadership.²¹ Career agents describe months of unemployment and lost family health coverage, and the offices that police official corruption were cut.¹²¹²² These facts support the charge of retaliation and abuse of public trust: the President backed turning federal law-enforcement power against the people who investigated him.¹²³⁰