DOJ Bombshell: FBI Spied on Trump’s FBI Director Pick Kash Patel

The FBI’s surveillance practices have come under intense scrutiny following a new report by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The findings, released Tuesday, revealed that Kash Patel—President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for FBI director—was among those targeted in a series of surveillance actions involving members of Congress, their staff, and journalists.

The revelations have sparked significant concerns about the FBI’s handling of sensitive investigations and its use of surveillance tools, particularly in politically charged cases.

According to the report, the DOJ obtained records from various individuals through a “compulsory process” between September 2017 and March 2018. These included members of Congress, congressional staffers, and members of the media. While the report does not name specific individuals, sources confirmed to CNN and the New York Post that Patel was among those targeted.

At the time, Patel was a key staffer on the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee. He played a pivotal role as the lead investigator into Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI’s controversial probe into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. That operation relied heavily on the now-discredited Steele Dossier to justify wiretapping former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Patel, a vocal critic of the FBI, has often described its leadership as part of the “deep state.” The OIG report revealed that the FBI subpoenaed non-content communication records from Patel and other individuals. These records were tied to an investigation into leaks of classified information to the press.

Patel’s spokesperson declined to comment directly on the report but emphasized that the findings underscore Patel’s qualifications to reform and rebuild the FBI. This is not the first time Patel has clashed with the bureau. In 2017, he sued the DOJ and then-FBI Director Christopher Wray over a subpoena targeting his personal email account.

In response to the report, some conservative lawmakers criticized the FBI’s actions as politically motivated. Rep. Kat Cammack called the surveillance “retaliation,” arguing it reflected systemic abuse by the agency.

“Simply put, it’s retaliation,” Cammack said. “The D.C. swamp creatures, particularly at the FBI, have been caught red-handed.”

The OIG report noted that the FBI targeted individuals from both political parties. This included records from 21 Democratic staffers, 20 Republican staffers, two nonpartisan staffers, and two members of Congress. Additionally, journalists from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN were also implicated in the investigation.

The surveillance aimed to identify sources leaking classified information to the press. The FBI justified its actions by pointing to the proximity between certain individuals accessing sensitive information and the subsequent publication of related news articles.

Despite the sweeping nature of the surveillance, the OIG report concluded that there was no evidence of political or retaliatory intent behind the investigations. However, it acknowledged that these actions created “the appearance of inappropriate interference by the executive branch,” raising concerns about public trust in federal institutions.

The revelations have intensified ongoing criticism of the FBI’s leadership and practices. During the period covered by the report, Andrew McCabe served as acting FBI director. McCabe, who was dismissed in 2018 for alleged misconduct, has been accused by Patel and others of abusing his power during his tenure.

Patel, who has long advocated for FBI reform, renewed his calls for significant changes to the agency. In a recent interview, he proposed shutting down the FBI’s Hoover Building headquarters and redistributing its employees to field offices across the country.

“I’d shut down the FBI Hoover Building on day one and reopen it the next day as a museum of the Deep State,” Patel said. “Then, I’d take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals. Go be cops. You’re cops—go be cops.”

The OIG findings have reignited debates about the balance between national security concerns and the protection of constitutional oversight roles. Critics argue that the surveillance of congressional staffers and journalists risks undermining public trust in federal agencies.

While the DOJ’s official response emphasized that career prosecutors pursued these investigations without bias, the fallout has led to calls for greater accountability and transparency in the use of surveillance tools.

Conservative commentators and lawmakers have seized on the report as further evidence of what they see as systemic overreach within the FBI. For Patel and his allies, the revelations serve as a vindication of their long-standing critiques of the agency.

As Kash Patel awaits confirmation as Trump’s nominee for FBI director, the findings from the OIG report may strengthen his case for reforming the bureau. Patel has vowed to overhaul the agency’s practices, focusing on rooting out what he describes as entrenched corruption within its leadership.

Whether these reforms come to fruition remains to be seen. However, the report’s revelations underscore the need for a broader conversation about accountability, oversight, and the appropriate use of surveillance in America’s most powerful institutions.

For now, the controversy surrounding Patel’s surveillance serves as a stark reminder of the tensions between national security imperatives and the constitutional principles of checks and balances