Trump Moves to Control the FBI

In case you are wondering, the title of this post is as distorted as the relationship reported between President Trump and FBI Director Kash Patel. Many people are disturbed because these two men are not following the patterns of previous presidents and FBI directors—which, of course, makes them suspect. Trump is accused of developing an overly close relationship with Patel, which the legacy media dislikes. But this arrangement works well for both Patel and Trump.

The first annoying fact is that Trump is being accused of violating the chain of command. Gosh, I guess presidents get to do that:

While every FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover has taken pains to keep the White House at arm’s length, the new Trump administration has taken the opposite tack, working to bring the traditionally independent ethos of the FBI and Justice Department firmly within the president’s grasp. Patel’s determination to keep in close contact with Trump himself is an arrangement outside the traditional chain of command in which the FBI director reports to the deputy attorney general, and the president usually talks only to the attorney general.

Let’s take a closer look at these arrangements. First, the legacy media has no idea about the relationships of past presidents and FBI directors. Since when is the “traditionally independent ethos” of the FBI and Justice an advantage? In fact, because Pam Bondi, Patel and Trump know each other quite well, they have no reason to “present an image” that satisfies the media. The more they all communicate with each other, and keep each other up-to-date, the more likely they are to conduct themselves ethically and professionally.

Loyalty to Trump has been a hot issue, particularly with the disappointments and betrayals he experienced from the people he appointed for his first term:

Soon after Trump’s inauguration, the White House installed a 2022 law school graduate, Paul Ingrassia, as its liaison for the Justice Department. Ingrassia vetted candidates for Justice Department roles and stressed loyalty to Trump in the process, people familiar with his work said.

Ingrassia also asked one senior official whom he had voted for. I suspect that was one step too far for the administration—and Ingrassia was transferred to another department. But I think verifying the loyalty of an employee to the administration is a reasonable action.

At his congressional address this past week, Trump acknowledged the fine work of Pam Bondi and Kash Patel to a standing ovation. Another pointed media comment followed:

The attendance of an FBI director at such an event is itself a rarity.

Is that supposed to mean something ominous? Too much loyalty?

But when the media gets desperate to find a scandal to write about, it just makes it up. The Wall Street Journal reported that Patel wanted to have a secure phone line direct to the president’s office; he also asked about hiring his own private security detail (although he would ordinarily be assigned an FBI detail). This was the FBI's response to these unverified reports:

‘Director Patel’s FBI will not tolerate the dissemination of false information designed to both undermine the FBI’s mission and put our brave agents at security risk,’ FBI spokesman Ben Williamson said. ‘Dishonest leakers will be identified and dealt with appropriately.’ The FBI has also cancelled its subscription to the Wall Street Journal, which had published a number of articles based on anonymous sources in recent days. Williamson told Just the News that ‘the FBI will no longer use precious American tax dollars to help spread false information about our agents who put themselves in harm’s way.’

Although canceling one subscription is not a big deal, the reason for the cancellation sends the message that lies and leaks will not be tolerated.

That works for me! How about you?