It is the FBI’s responsibility to investigate law enforcement killings when they have information that indicates an officer may have used his or her official authority to violate a person’s civil rights. Some FBI agents spend their entire careers conducting these “color of law” cases. It is the Department of Justice’s responsibility to oversee and prosecute cases in which law enforcement officers violate civil rights through excessive force, false arrests, and other deprivations of constitutional rights. But recent cases show that instead of investigating the officers responsible for these killings, the FBI is hoarding evidence, frustrating local efforts to seek justice, and vilifying the victims as terrorists. This leaves communities grieving, and local law enforcement questioning their long-time partnerships with the Bureau.

On January 7, 2026, Renee Good, an unarmed US citizen and mother of three, stopped her vehicle on a snowy Minneapolis street partially obstructing the flow of traffic. After exchanging words with an ICE agent, Good pulled her SUV forward to leave the area. She was shot by ICE agent Jonathan Ross and died at the scene.

DHS publicly misrepresented the incident and falsely labeled Good as a domestic terrorist, despite the fact that numerous videos of the shooting raised serious questions about Agent Ross’ use of lethal force. The FBI seized all relevant evidence, and initiated an investigation to determine if Good committed an assault on Ross. The FBI then refused to cooperate with the District Attorney’s office efforts to investigate the killing. Minnesota officials were forced to sue the FBI to gain access to the evidence.

On January 24, Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse and US citizen, was shot by two immigration agents after coming to the assistance of an unarmed female bystander who was thrown to the ground by an agent conducting an immigration action in Minneapolis. Pretti was lawfully carrying a handgun at the time, but was disarmed by the agents before they shot him. Like the Renee Good case, DHS issued misleading statements about Pretti, which were later contradicted by video evidence. The FBI seized all evidence from the crime scene, opened a case investigating Pretti, and refused to cooperate with the District Attorney’s inquiry into the killing.

On July 7, 52-year-old Mexican immigrant Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was shot and killed by ICE agents while driving his van to work in Houston. Video of the shooting clearly shows Salgado bringing his van to a stop as several masked immigration officers approach the sides of the van. One eye witness later stated that Salgado was shot through the passenger side door window. ICE issued a public statement asserting that Salgado, “rammed an ICE law enforcement vehicle, refused to follow multiple verbal commands, and weaponized his vehicle in an attempt to run over an ICE law enforcement officer.” The FBI processed the crime scene, opened an investigation into whether Salgado assaulted a federal officer, and denied the local district attorney access to the evidence.

On July 13, Joan Sebastian Guerrero, a 26-year-old husband and father from Columbia, was shot by ICE and Border Patrol agents during a traffic stop in Biddeford, Maine. DHS initially stated that the agents were surveilling Guerrero’s residence, but later reversed course and stated that Guerrero was not the intended target of the immigration action. DHS claimed that Guerrero’s “vehicle attempted to flee the scene and, fearing for public safety, an officer discharged his weapon.” They did not, however, explain why someone they were not looking for “fled” the scene, and how he could possibly have threatened public safety. ICE agents fired through Guerrero’s windshield, killing him and sending his vehicle rolling down the street. The FBI processed the crime scene and stated that it had opened an investigation, but failed to identify its subject or purpose

While the facts and circumstances of these cases may differ, the FBI’s response has been consistent: take the evidence, refuse to share it with local officials, and blame the victim. The Department of Justice simply remains silent. The most significant consequence of this abdication of responsibility is that the families, friends, and communities touched by tragedy also lose their best chance at seeing justice for the loss of their loved ones. When federal agents use excessive force, the federal government is in the best position to investigate and prosecute them. The failure to look into these killings is malpractice that denies the families any chance at justice.

At the same time, the failure to investigate sends a clear message to the agent workforce: you can act with impunity. When people die at the hands of police, and official explanations are inconsistent with the evidence, officers understand that the law does not matter. They know they will not be held accountable as long as the arrest numbers continue to rise.

But there is a longer term, less apparent, effect of the FBI’s failure to live up to its investigative responsibilities in these cases: it tears apart the delicate cloth of law enforcement partnerships. Law enforcement cooperation and the sharing of unique abilities and authorities has become the backbone of public safety across the country. When the FBI helps a local police department process a challenging crime scene, that department becomes more inclined to assign one of their officers to the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. When the FBI provides a rare piece of technology to help a sheriff’s department take down a drug gang, that department’s deputies begin sharing more local narcotics trafficking intelligence with the FBI. Helping leads to partnerships. Partnerships lead to success. Success in law enforcement leads to safety and security for us all.

The FBI’s actions in these recent immigration-related law enforcement killings runs counter to every rule of partnership and collaboration. The Bureau has used its federal authority and crime scene capabilities not to secure evidence for prosecution, but to place it beyond the reach of local investigators. As a result, victims are denied justice, officers are emboldened to deploy lethal force without question, and the relationships between federal, state and local law enforcement partners are strained. We are all less safe as a result.

I served under four FBI directors, each of whom I knew personally and had the opportunity to observe closely under stressful conditions. At the end of my 21-year career, while serving as deputy director, I was Acting FBI Director for three months. I can tell you without reservation that it is a tough job that requires 110 percent of everything you have, every day. There are no breaks—it comes before weekends, vacations, holidays, family, and even your health. It is an immense responsibility, one in which you may be required to make consequential decisions at any time, day or night.

If the article is accurate, it paints a troubling picture of an FBI director whose behavior may be putting the nation at risk. Reading it forced me to step back and compare many aspects of Patel’s performance with the lessons I learned from working for four FBI directors—and briefly serving in the role myself. The exercise did not make me feel any better. Here are some of the ways in which I believe Kash Patel is failing as FBI director.

1. The Director Must Be Present

Let’s start with availability. If you want to lead the world’s premier law enforcement agency, you must be physically and mentally present. There is no autopilot for the director. FBI employees watch the director closely, so any indication that you are “phoning it in” sends a clear message to the workforce that the job is not urgent. This is a problem because the job is urgent—at all times.

This is why Robert Mueller was in his office every day by 7:00 a.m., received his intelligence briefing at 8:00 a.m., and personally briefed the Attorney General three days a week at 9:00 a.m. Jim Comey kept a similar schedule and projected the same no-nonsense image: cool-headed, in command, and expert. That standard is essential.

The FBI’s mission is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution. To accomplish this, every employee must see themselves as essential to that objective. The director communicates this commitment by embodying it. Leading a personal life that becomes fodder for stories about partying, attending sporting events, and using the FBI jet for personal travel delegitimizes the director and stands in stark contrast to the sacrifices expected of FBI employees. Showing up late and rescheduling meetings undermines the sense of urgency and dedication required of the workforce. Patel’s inconsistency and poor example risk creating a culture in which others feel permitted to behave the same way. That is not good for the Bureau—or the country it protects.

2. The Director Must Make Decisions

When you run an organization that investigates every federal criminal law in the U.S. Code and serves as the nation’s first line of defense against spies and terrorists, tough decisions arise constantly. The director is viewed as the primary leader of the nation’s law enforcement community and a de facto expert on the Bureau’s work.

Historically, FBI directors are expected to be ready to get on a secure line with the president, congressional leaders, and intelligence officials at a moment’s notice to discuss active threats. You must be able to master the details of a crisis quickly and act on them at any time, day or night.

Any FBI director who drinks to the point of impairment is abandoning this core responsibility. You cannot make sound decisions when intoxicated. You cannot be expected to give clear direction if your security team has to break down a door to wake you. Spending late nights at exclusive clubs in Washington or Las Vegas creates conditions that undermine judgment. Even public displays—such as chugging beer in a locker room—send a message that dignity, composure, and clarity are not priorities.

The director has a duty to be reachable, informed, and ready to make life-or-death decisions 24/7. If the reporting is accurate, Patel is not meeting that standard.

3. The Director Must Manage Crisis

Every director faces crises. Major cases bring major challenges, and the most difficult issues inevitably reach the director’s desk. During the week of the Boston Marathon bombing, Director Mueller received multiple daily briefings. Each evening, when I held a conference call with the Boston field office for detailed updates, Mueller joined anonymously to listen in from his office. If he was dissatisfied, I was called in to explain our progress, or the lack of it, and discuss adjustments.

Through it all, he remained calm and disciplined. He did not overcommunicate, did not share sensitive details with the press, and consistently put the mission ahead of himself.

Patel, however, has shown a pattern of poor decision-making during crises. During investigations such as the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the Brown University shootings, he rushed to release information on social media. In both cases, the information proved premature and inaccurate. These repeated failures undermined public confidence and risked complicating potential prosecutions.

In moments when FBI employees needed steady, clear leadership, they instead received confusion, distraction and misdirection. Crisis leadership is the ultimate test of a leader. By that measure, Patel’s performance appears to fall short.

4. The Director Must Push Back

Although appointed by the president, FBI directors since the Hoover era have been expected to maintain independence from the White House. The reason is simple: the FBI must follow the facts and the law, not politics.

That independence can create conflict. In those moments, the director must be willing to push back against presidential pressure that could compromise the Bureau’s integrity. No director wants a political fight with the White House—but when the law is on your side, it is your duty to stand firm, and push back.

Director Louis Freeh did so during the Clinton administration’s misuse of FBI background files, publicly calling it an “egregious violation of privacy” and reinforcing the Bureau’s independence. After 9/11, Director Mueller resisted pressure to allow FBI participation in interrogations involving torture, protecting both the law and the Bureau’s reputation. In 2004, Mueller and Acting Attorney General James Comey resisted efforts to continue a warrantless surveillance program deemed unlawful, even threatening resignation. Their stand reshaped national security policy, and preserved the independence and integrity of the FBI.

Sixteen months into his tenure, Patel has shown little of this independence. Despite pledging not to punish employees involved in Trump-related investigations, he has overseen widespread removals. He has aligned the FBI more closely with political priorities, including immigration enforcement actions traditionally handled by DHS. He has used the FBI to facilitate the president’s political agenda by releasing sensitive FBI information, touting conspiracy theories, and commanding politically motivated investigations targeting the President’s perceived enemies.

Rather than insulating the FBI from politics, Patel appears to have embraced political influence in ways that risk undermining the Bureau’s mission.

5. The Director Must Protect the FBI Workforce

The FBI’s greatest asset is its people—more than 37,000 employees serving around the world in demanding and often dangerous roles. They are drawn to the FBI mission and typically remain in the FBI until retirement. They work on diverse matters such as crimes against children, money laundering, espionage, terrorism, organized crime, and community outreach. They do not choose their work based on politics; they carry out assignments in service of protecting the American public.

The director’s most important responsibility is to lead and protect that workforce. If the director fails in this duty, the Bureau itself will suffer.

In my view, Patel has failed here as well. Despite promises to avoid retribution, he has overseen efforts to remove employees perceived as disloyal. Reports describe loyalists culling FBI files for signs of disfavored politics, and summoning employees to polygraph examinations focused on their views about Patel. Widespread firings and forced retirements have touched every level of the organization.

This approach risks creating a climate of fear within the FBI—one in which employees worry about their words, their assignments, and their careers, rather than focussing on threats to the nation. That kind of environment erodes trust, damages morale, and ultimately weakens the institution.

Undermining the faith FBI employees have in their mission and leadership may prove to be the most damaging legacy of Kash Patel’s tenure.

If you found this useful, consider sharing or subscribing for more analysis on national security, law enforcement and leadership.

Subscribe now