Kash Patel and the Lessons of FBI Leadership

How does the current director stand up to his predecessors?

On Friday night, Sarah Fitzpatrick at The Atlantic broke a major story detailing numerous alleged issues with FBI Director Kash Patel. From launching into a panicked meltdown when his computer password stopped working, to rescheduling meetings after late-night drinking binges, to requiring his protection team to use breaching equipment to wake him in the morning, Fitzpatrick paints a picture of a man who drinks too much, is frequently absent from work, flies off the handle during crises, hunts down employees he believes dislike him, and—most crucially—has lost the support of the FBI workforce. Fitzpatrick claims to have spoken to more than two dozen sources for the article, including current and former FBI officials, law enforcement and intelligence leaders, and members of Congress. Patel has called the allegations false and has threatened to sue The Atlantic for defamation.

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.