Two former FBI special agents who say they played minimal roles in the investigation that led to criminal charges against President Donald Trump have filed a lawsuit against FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi, alleging their “unlawful” firings violate the U.S. Constitution.
Patel has routinely fired FBI special agents who were tied to investigations into Trump. The most recent round of firings happened last month, shortly after Patel appeared in viral locker room videos drinking beer and celebrating with the U.S. men’s hockey team following its victory over Canada during the Winter Olympics in Italy. Trump conveyed his displeasure with Patel, NBC News reported.
The FBI declined to comment on the pending litigation. Patel has broadly said that those who were fired were weaponizing law enforcement.
In a termination letter for one of the agents, the FBI said that the agent had “exercised poor judgment and a lack of impartiality in carrying out duties, leading to the political weaponization of the government,” according to the lawsuit.
"Arctic Frost" was the code name given to the probe into the alleged criminal conspiracy to overturn Trump's 2020 election loss. It was opened in early 2022, and was overseen by former special counsel Jack Smith after his appointment that year. Trump was indicted on four charges in August 2023.
After Trump won the 2024 presidency, Smith moved to dismiss the case due to long-standing Justice Department policy stating that sitting presidents can't face charges. But Smith maintained that his office secured "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that Trump engaged in a "criminal scheme" to overturn his 2020 election loss. Trump has called for Smith to be "investigated and put in prison."
The two agents who filed suit Thursday were both fired late last year and entered into the litigation anonymously, saying that the publication of their names “would subject them and their families to an immediate risk of doxing, SWATting, harassment, and physical harm.” One of the former special agents “has already been the subject of threatening social media posts” after operational records containing his name were released.
Their attorneys wrote in a filing that publicizing their names would "pose a new threat to plaintiffs — not simply harming their employment prospects, but rather placing their actual physical safety and mental health newly at risk.”
The lawsuit says the two former FBI special agents “fully adhered to FBI and DOJ policies and procedures” and “executed their law-enforcement duties without bias or political motive.”
John Doe 1’s “contributions to Arctic Frost were largely administrative and ministerial,” the lawsuit says. The lawsuit recounts that he was preparing to go trick-or-treating with his two children on Halloween when he got a call telling him to report to the main Washington Field Office location in D.C.
After his work on the Trump investigation, John Doe 1 later began fraud investigations and was "given no opportunity to transition these matters to other agents,” the lawsuit states. He worries those cases may be lost, forgotten or dismissed now.
John Doe 2, who graduated from the FBI Academy in 2018, was “never one of the primary or lead agents on Arctic Frost” and instead “played a supporting role” in the investigation, according to the lawsuit. He returned to his unit, which focused on public corruption involving local D.C. elections and officials, in June 2023, before Trump was indicted.
John Doe 2 also served on the FBI Washington Field Office’s crisis negotiations team and was training for a SWAT role, which required intense physical activity. The lawsuit says he “even once received a ‘fist pump’ from Patel when the director saw him exercising on a holiday” at the gym at FBI headquarters.
The ex-FBI special agents say their firings violated their First Amendment rights because the terminations were based on their perceived political beliefs and violated their Fifth Amendment rights because they were denied due process. The government stigmatized ex-FBI special agents and caused reputational harm by “suggesting they were something other than faithful and apolitical law enforcement personnel," the lawsuit states.
