WASHINGTON (The Thursday Times) — As Donald Trump readies himself to take office again, his loyal ally Kash Patel, a fierce critic of the FBI and Justice Department, emerges as a possible choice for a high-stakes role in U.S. intelligence. Patel, a former senior Defense Department official with a background in national security, is not just any candidate. Known for his unrelenting stance against what he terms the “Deep State,” Patel has openly pushed for radical changes to federal institutions he sees as compromised. This potential placement could significantly impact U.S. intelligence, given his track record of promoting a “housecleaning” of those he claims are politically biased against Trump and his allies.
“Russiagate” investigator to Trump’s right hand
Patel’s journey from his role as a congressional investigator during the so-called “Russiagate” inquiry to a trusted Trump advisor is emblematic of the Trump era’s approach to governance. In his early years, Patel worked in the Justice Department’s National Security Division, where he gained insight into the inner workings of federal intelligence and law enforcement. However, it was his role as a leading investigator in the House Republicans’ probe into FBI conduct during the 2016 election that cemented his standing with Trump. His findings, claiming FBI misconduct, placed him at odds with federal leadership and paved the way for his prominent position in Trump’s orbit.
Government Gangsters
Patel’s ambitions for restructuring federal agencies are outlined in his book Government Gangsters, which Trump has publicly called a “blueprint” for the next administration. In it, Patel envisions an unprecedented overhaul of both the FBI and Justice Department. His proposals range from firing high-level officials to prosecuting those he claims “abused their authority for political ends.” The book’s detailed criticisms of the FBI and Justice Department align with Trump’s longstanding view that these agencies, particularly under Democratic administrations, have misused their powers.
A “two-tier system” of justice
Patel frequently argues that the Justice Department operates a “two-tier system of justice,” which he contends unfairly favours Democrats. His accusations extend to past investigations into Trump and his associates, from the probe into alleged Russian interference to indictments of Trump allies over their refusal to comply with legal orders. Patel maintains that those involved in these cases exploited their power, creating a system where political bias dictates enforcement—a claim Trump has reiterated throughout his campaign.
If appointed, Patel’s plans extend beyond personnel changes. He has publicly argued for stripping security clearances from officials who have opposed Trump or been involved in what he describes as politically motivated investigations. His call to revoke clearances specifically targets those involved in “Russiagate,” claiming they manipulated intelligence for political gain. According to Patel, these individuals, some of whom now work in the private sector, should no longer have access to sensitive information. He has reportedly advised Trump to revoke the clearances of 51 former intelligence officials who questioned the origins of emails linked to Hunter Biden.
CIA, Justice Department, or FBI: what’s next?
Speculation about Patel’s role in Trump’s cabinet has ranged widely. Media outlets have suggested that Patel might become Attorney General, head the CIA, or even replace FBI Director Christopher Wray, whom Trump reportedly intends to fire. Each role would give Patel significant influence over intelligence and law enforcement, potentially allowing him to enact the sweeping changes he’s advocated. If selected for the CIA, Patel would bring his hardline stance to an agency tasked with covert operations and foreign intelligence—a role that could shift the focus of U.S. intelligence in ways not seen in recent administrations.
“Museum to the Deep State”
One of Patel’s most controversial ideas is his proposal to close the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., and convert the building into what he calls a “museum to the Deep State.” This symbolic move reflects his belief that the agency has become irredeemably compromised by political interests. Patel’s restructuring plan would relocate most FBI personnel to field offices, leaving only a skeleton crew in the capital. This decentralisation, he argues, would help eliminate entrenched political biases that he believes influence the agency’s operations from within Washington.
The “Russiagate” probe, which investigated alleged ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia in 2016, remains central to Patel’s argument for an overhaul. In his view, the FBI’s handling of the investigation demonstrated a lack of “analytical rigour” and a failure to properly scrutinise politically charged information. Patel believes that those involved in the investigation acted out of political motivations, despite a Justice Department inspector general’s report finding no evidence of bias. For Patel, “Russiagate” represents what he sees as a systemic failure within federal agencies that warrants a complete shake-up.
Patel’s blueprint also calls for prosecuting officials he claims have “manipulated evidence” or withheld information for political purposes. His critique includes the Justice Department’s decision not to charge Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server and the choice not to indict Hunter Biden for influence-peddling allegations. In contrast, Patel has criticised the indictments of Trump allies, arguing these cases reflect a selective application of the law. His plan aims to address what he perceives as an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, which he believes has fostered a culture of partisanship within the department.
Patel’s potential appointment could also impact the broader intelligence community. With Trump’s endorsement, Patel has suggested releasing still-classified documents from past investigations involving Trump. On his last day in office in 2021, Trump announced he had declassified documents related to the Russia probe, though they were never officially published. Patel has consistently called for these and other documents to be made public, arguing they contain information about “corrupt activities” within government that Americans deserve to see.
Creating a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”
Trump has voiced support for a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” that would declassify and publish documents linked to alleged “Deep State” activities, censorship, and corruption. This initiative aligns with Patel’s call for transparency, positioning both men as advocates for exposing what they claim are hidden government agendas. Patel’s role in such a commission could bring substantial changes to the relationship between government transparency and national security.
Critics argue that Patel’s approach risks politicising intelligence and law enforcement even further, potentially undermining nonpartisan structures. Many see his proposed reforms as a threat to the FBI’s and Justice Department’s independence, suggesting that they could lead to an environment where government functions as a political tool. Patel’s supporters, however, argue that his plans represent a necessary correction to a system they see as fundamentally biased.
Trump’s supporters interpret his reelection as a mandate to dismantle what they see as entrenched bureaucratic corruption. Patel has characterised Trump’s victory as a call for accountability, claiming that the time has come to expose and reform a system he believes has suppressed conservative voices. In this context, Patel’s influence and potential role could signify a broader shift in how federal agencies interact with elected leaders.
The possibility of Patel leading or influencing the CIA, FBI, or Justice Department has raised eyebrows within the intelligence community. His approach, which includes purging senior officials and revoking security clearances, has sparked concerns over morale and the future of intelligence independence. Some former intelligence officials argue that Patel’s proposals could weaken national security, though his supporters maintain that they would restore accountability.
If implemented, Patel’s vision could reshape the landscape of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement for years to come. His emphasis on decentralising the FBI, revamping leadership, and increasing transparency challenges the structure and scope of these institutions. The potential reforms signal a profound shift in how the Justice Department and FBI would operate, impacting future administrations and altering the federal government’s relationship with intelligence.
Trump’s endorsement of Patel’s ideas highlights a shared vision for tackling alleged corruption within federal agencies. Their alliance reflects a convergence of conservative demands for accountability and a desire to dismantle what they term as unchecked bureaucratic power. This partnership between Trump and Patel, should it continue into the next administration, could profoundly influence the trajectory of federal governance.
Throughout Government Gangsters, Patel emphasises themes of accountability, transparency, and retribution for perceived wrongdoings by federal officials. His approach resonates with a section of Trump’s base that feels alienated by government institutions. Patel’s ideas offer a provocative response to conservative grievances about the federal government’s reach, reflecting his unique position within Trump’s inner circle as both advisor and prospective reformer.
At the core of Patel’s proposals is a reinterpretation of the rule of law in the federal context. His push for reforms challenges long-standing norms around nonpartisanship and accountability, suggesting that government power should be more directly answerable to the president. Whether these changes strengthen or weaken the rule of law remains a subject of fierce debate, with profound implications for the future of American governance.