Unfit for Duty: The Grave National Security Risk of Kash Patel Leading the FBI

Our nation’s security depends on stopping his confirmation.

As you receive this, I am on Capitol Hill for the confirmation hearing for FBI Director nominee Kash Patel. As you may know, Kash and I have a little history. We worked together in the past, and he recently made legal threats against me for speaking the truth about him. I want to share with you today some more details about that history.

I have spent my career at the intersection of national security and crisis response, working directly with the highest levels of leadership in the U.S. government. I have advised and operated alongside decision-makers who shaped our nation’s security, from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—who once stated about me that, “she does not suffer fools”—to the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Under Secretary for Intelligence at DHS, and the Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence.

I have worked first-hand with National Security Advisors like Ambassador John Bolton and Charlie Kupperman—individuals who understood the weight of their roles and the precision required in matters of intelligence and counterterrorism. My experience spans three administrations—those of Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump—where I sat in the room during responses to terrorist attacks, watching our country’s leadership make decisions in real-time that impacted national security.

Because of this, I know what true leadership looks like at the highest levels. I know what it takes to operate within the national security apparatus. I understand the demands of the role and the gravity of the work. I know the role of the FBI. And I know what happens when people in these positions are unfit for the job. It is with this background that I feel compelled to express serious concerns regarding Kash Patel’s qualifications for Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It’s also the reason that I signed onto this letter earlier this week with more than 20 former Republican law enforcement officials urging Republican senators to oppose Patel.

The FBI plays a critical role in safeguarding our national security, maintaining public trust, and ensuring justice. Its leadership demands integrity, independence, and experience rooted in law enforcement and public service. Unfortunately, Mr. Patel’s track record as publicly reported, raises significant questions about his suitability for this vital role. Former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton recently described Patel as a “climbing weed”. I agree with him. Mr. Patel’s approach to his role at the National Security Council I would describe as prioritizing his own egotistical personal bravado, partisan loyalty and personal agendas over professional responsibilities. I also made sure to fact-check everything he ever said to me.

It seems that when it comes to very sensitive national security operations this was a pattern that repeated itself as highlighted by former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s recollection of what happened during a U.S. SEAL Team rescue mission in Nigeria during President Trump’s first administration when Mr. Patel was said to have misinformed the Department of Defense’s leadership that they had country clearance when in reality this had not been secured. I can’t overstate how dangerous and reckless this is. It could potentially put lives at risk. CBS also recently reported that an FBI insider has come forward with new information questioning Mr. Patel's judgment during sensitive hostage rescue missions.

Mr. Patel’s public behavior and affiliations raise serious concerns about his ability to lead the FBI impartially. By appearing on far-right podcasts, promoting conspiracy theories, and openly expressing distrust in the very professionals he is meant to lead, he has systematically eroded the integrity of the FBI’s leadership. He has repeatedly said he will be hostile to them and I take him at his word given that I witnessed him openly disparage the Bureau during meetings while sitting in his role at the National Security Council. The FBI has faced increasing public scrutiny and politicization in recent years. Appointing a leader with a history of extreme partisanship and having demonstrated efforts to weaken key national security institutions would further diminish public confidence in the Bureau’s impartiality.

Mr. Patel’s partisan rhetoric and numerous examples of frivolous litigation, which he has both brought on behalf of himself and funded for others, should further cast doubt on his ability to demonstrate the level of integrity needed to head the FBI. These actions, which appear poised to continue even while he would be in office, would undermine the Bureau’s credibility, which is critical to its ability to carry out investigations domestically and internationally. What Mr. Patel has said repeatedly has cast aspersions on the ability to trust FBI agents, who are obviously expected and will testify often in courts of law. If he is confirmed–what’s to stop the defense team from arguing in a case that the FBI is involved with from simply saying: how can the jury trust the testimony of this FBI agent when their own FBI Director doesn’t trust them.

Furthermore, Mr. Patel’s partisan track record, coupled with his public statements about downsizing or dismantling the FBI, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bureau’s mission and post-9/11 reforms. After 9/11, the FBI shifted from a reactive law enforcement agency to a proactive, intelligence-driven organization, making counterterrorism its top priority and creating specialized units like the National Security Branch and Directorate of Intelligence to improve threat detection and response. It expanded Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), as well as enhanced intelligence sharing with agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

It is my strong belief that Mr. Patel’s potential nomination raises two critical questions:

• Can the United States Senate assure the American people that he is the best candidate to lead the FBI during an era of heightened threats both foreign and domestic?

• How many career special agents will be fired or transferred from their post for having simply performed their jobs following his confirmation as part of a retribution plan of ensuring loyalty to one man? And who will fill those roles?

As has been reported in various publications, many individuals across the national security community have witnessed firsthand Mr. Patel's pattern of dishonesty and are acutely aware of the significant threat such behavior poses to our national security and the safety of the nation. Unfortunately, many are reluctant to come forward due to his explicit promises of retaliation. Please do not take their silence as a sign of support when it is actually a sign of fear. That such a statement has to be made about this nominee perhaps says it all.

P.S. While my focus today is on the singular threat Kash Patel represents, I have some opinions about Director of National Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard as well. As she faces her own hearing today, you can read my previous comments about her here and here.