Source Reporting and Analysis of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Under the Leadership of FBI Director Kash Patel: A Pulse Check Of The First Six (6) Months (February 21, 2025 Through August 21, 2025). Available at “FBI REPORT.” Scribd, n.d., https://www.scribd.com/document/958712353/FBI-REPORT.
Assistance from Claude AI.
What This Document Is
This is a real, leaked internal assessment that has generated significant controversy over the past week. The 115-page report claims to come from “a national alliance of retired and active-duty FBI special agents and analysts” and was submitted to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees (chaired by Representatives Jim Jordan and Senator Chuck Grassley) in November 2025. The document was first reported publicly by the New York Post on December 1, 2025, and has since been covered extensively by news organizations across the political spectrum.
The report purports to be a “pulse check” of the FBI’s first six months under Director Kash Patel, who took office on February 20-21, 2025. It’s based on confidential reporting from 24 sources and sub-sources collected between August and September 2025, using a coded system to protect the identities of those providing information.
What the Report Claims
The document paints a deeply troubled picture of the FBI under Patel’s leadership. The central findings revolve around ten key areas, which the authors argue show a law enforcement agency in crisis. Let me walk through the major themes.
First, the report describes pervasive low morale and a culture of fear. Multiple sources describe agents as “paralyzed” by uncertainty, afraid of making decisions without explicit direction from leadership, and worried about losing their jobs or being reassigned for unclear reasons. One source said everyone is “on pins and needles” about what comes next. The report suggests this fear-based culture prevents agents from exercising the kind of independent judgment that effective law enforcement requires.
Second, the report criticizes what it calls lack of experience and questionable leadership decisions. The assessment points out that neither Patel nor Deputy Director Dan Bongino has prior FBI experience. Patel came from roles in national security and congressional oversight, while Bongino was a former Secret Service agent and conservative media personality. The report includes accounts from sources who question whether the leadership understands the day-to-day operational realities of running the world’s premier federal law enforcement agency.
Third, the document details specific incidents that sources found concerning. The most widely reported example involves the investigation into conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s killing in Utah. According to one source, when Patel arrived at the scene, he refused to leave the FBI plane until someone found him a medium-sized FBI raid jacket. When agents finally located a female agent’s jacket that fit, Patel allegedly refused to disembark again until proper patches were added to the sleeves, requiring SWAT team members to remove patches from their own uniforms and bring them to the airport. Throughout this time, sources say, agents were busy working the active investigation.
The report also describes what it calls “punitive polygraph examinations.” According to sources, after Patel learned that some agents had discussed whether he should be issued an FBI firearm, he ordered those agents to undergo polygraph tests to determine their involvement in the discussion and any actions they took afterward. Sources characterized this as using investigative tools to punish internal dissent rather than for legitimate security purposes.
Fourth, the assessment addresses communication and social media concerns. Multiple sources complained that both Patel and Bongino frequently announce FBI news and policy changes via social media posts on X (formerly Twitter) before communicating with FBI personnel through official channels. Agents report learning about bureau developments from Twitter rather than from their chain of command. There’s also criticism about what sources see as the leaders’ focus on building their personal brands and social media followings rather than on transparent internal communication.
Fifth, the report discusses the shift toward immigration enforcement. Sources describe significant resources being diverted to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with deportation operations. While some sources support this reorientation as appropriate given current administration priorities, others warn that the shift has “caused other work to pile up” and express concern that counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and traditional criminal investigations are suffering from reduced attention and staffing.
Sixth, the document addresses reactions to the January 6 pardons. The report indicates significant demoralization among agents who worked on investigations related to the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, particularly after President Trump issued broad pardons for many participants. Some sources express frustration that their work was essentially nullified, while others worry about retaliation for having been involved in those cases. The document notes that the FBI provided lists of personnel who worked on January 6 cases to Department of Justice leadership.
Seventh, there are mixed reactions to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) changes. The report acknowledges that some sources welcomed the elimination of DEI programs, saying there had been an “over-emphasis” on DEI initiatives “to the exclusion of actual work.” However, other sources expressed concern about how the changes were implemented and what they signal about the bureau’s values and recruiting capabilities.
The document also includes what it characterizes as examples of internal political divisions. The authors describe what they call “Trump Derangement Syndrome” among some FBI personnel who harbor strong negative feelings toward President Trump, while also noting that Patel himself previously campaigned for Trump and was a vocal critic of the FBI before becoming its director. The report suggests this partisan divide creates dysfunction at multiple levels of the organization.
Verification and Reactions
The authenticity of this report appears solid based on the news coverage. Senator Dick Durbin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, released an official statement acknowledging the report and calling for accountability. His statement referenced specific details from the document, including the jacket incident, indicating he had reviewed the actual report. The FBI has not disputed the document’s existence, though neither Patel nor the FBI has provided an official response to its contents.
Dan Bongino responded on social media, dismissing the report as “gossipy nonsense” from people who are “very upset at the changes and reforms we’ve made at the FBI” and want to “revert to the old ways of doing things.” He characterized the sources as having “a clear agenda” and pointed to what he called “historic results and significant reforms.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also addressed related reporting, stating that there were no plans to remove Patel from his position. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson called Patel “a critical member of the president’s team” who is “working tirelessly to restore integrity to the FBI.”
The Republican chairs of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, to whom the report was addressed, have not issued public statements about its contents or findings.
What This Means
This report represents a rare public window into internal FBI dynamics during a period of significant organizational upheaval. Several aspects make it particularly noteworthy.
First, the report comes from inside the organization itself—not from external critics or political opponents, but from people who identify themselves as current and former FBI personnel. The use of a coded source system and the level of operational detail suggest these are people with genuine insider access. The authors emphasize they want the FBI to succeed and are motivated by concern for the organization’s mission rather than partisan politics, though critics would likely question those motivations.
Second, the timing matters. This assessment comes at the six-month mark of Patel’s tenure, which is both early enough that patterns may still be forming and late enough that initial impressions have had time to solidify. The report essentially serves as a mid-term progress report from people who work in or near the organization Patel was appointed to reform.
Third, the report highlights the fundamental tension at the heart of Patel’s appointment. Trump selected Patel specifically because he was an outsider who had been critical of the FBI and promised to reform it. But that same outsider status—the lack of FBI institutional experience—is precisely what sources in this report cite as problematic. This creates a paradox: the qualities that made Patel appealing for the job (willingness to challenge FBI culture, loyalty to Trump’s vision) may be the same qualities that make it difficult for him to effectively lead FBI personnel on a day-to-day basis.
Fourth, the document raises questions about institutional knowledge and continuity. Multiple sources express concern about senior agents being pushed out or leaving, taking decades of expertise with them. When combined with leaders who have no prior FBI experience, this creates what organizational experts would recognize as a recipe for institutional memory loss and operational difficulties.
Different Perspectives
It’s important to understand that reasonable people view this situation very differently depending on their starting assumptions.
From the reform perspective: Supporters of Patel would argue that resistance from within the FBI is exactly what you’d expect when trying to change an organization that many conservatives believe became politicized and overreaching. The complaints in this report might be seen as evidence that reforms are working—that entrenched interests resistant to change are being disrupted. The focus on “low morale” could be reframed as resistance to necessary accountability. From this view, the FBI needed an outsider precisely because insiders were part of the problem.
From the institutional stability perspective: Critics would argue that effective law enforcement requires institutional expertise, trust between leadership and field agents, and stability that allows complex investigations to proceed. The concerns raised in the report—about fear, confusion, resource diversion, and operational paralysis—could undermine the FBI’s ability to protect national security and investigate serious crimes. From this view, whatever reforms might be needed, the way they’re being implemented is causing collateral damage that outweighs the benefits.
From the professional conduct perspective: Some observers would focus less on political questions and more on specific allegations about leadership behavior. Incidents like the jacket delay during an active murder investigation, or using polygraphs to investigate internal dissent, raise questions about judgment and priorities that transcend partisan politics. These are questions about whether a leader is making decisions that put the mission first or personal concerns first.
The Broader Context
This report doesn’t exist in isolation. It comes during a period when the FBI faces multiple challenges: congressional investigations into its past actions, internal debates about mission priorities, external criticism from both political parties (though for different reasons), and the practical challenge of investigating everything from terrorism to cybercrime to complex financial fraud while also supporting a major immigration enforcement push.
The document also reflects the reality that in 2025, institutional leadership happens in a much more transparent environment than it did even a decade ago. Internal assessments that might once have stayed truly confidential now get leaked and publicly debated. Social media allows leaders to communicate directly with the public, bypassing traditional communication channels—but that same transparency means personnel decisions and internal debates that would once have remained private now play out in public view.
For a general audience trying to understand what’s happening at the FBI, this report is significant not because it provides definitive answers, but because it raises important questions about how organizations change, what effective leadership looks like, and how to balance reform with stability. The concerns it documents appear genuine based on the detail provided, but how much weight to give those concerns depends substantially on what you think the FBI’s problems were in the first place and what kinds of changes you think were necessary.
The bottom line is that this is a real document from apparent insiders painting a troubling picture of an organization under stress, and the coming months will show whether those concerns prove prescient or whether they represent growing pains from a reform effort that ultimately succeeds in its goals.