WASHINGTON – FBI Director Kash Patel is bracing for a grilling from both sides of the aisle as he prepares to testify before Congress on Tuesday, September 16, 2025, amid swirling controversies over his handling of the investigation into the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and a wave of internal firings that have plunged the bureau into turmoil.
Patel, a staunch ally of President Donald Trump confirmed in February 2025 in a razor-thin, party-line Senate vote, returns to the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time since his January confirmation hearing. There, he pledged to Democrats that he would steer clear of retribution against perceived political enemies within the FBI. Now, with the bureau reeling from high-profile missteps and lawsuits alleging a “campaign of retribution,” Patel faces skeptical lawmakers eager to probe whether he’s lived up to those assurances.
The hearing, which will also include an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee later in the week, comes just days after the FBI’s response to Kirk’s killing on a Utah college campus last week drew sharp bipartisan criticism. Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed by 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, who authorities say had increasingly embraced a “leftist ideology” and become more politically radicalized in recent years. Robinson turned himself in late Saturday night, September 13, after acquaintances tipped off law enforcement, but not before Patel’s public handling of the case ignited a firestorm.
Patel drew immediate backlash for a social media post hours after the shooting, announcing that “the subject” was in custody—a claim he walked back less than two hours later, stating the individual had been released following an interview. The swift reversal fueled accusations of incompetence, with conservative commentator Chris Rufo questioning Patel’s “operational expertise” in a Friday morning post on X (formerly Twitter). “He performed terribly in the last few days, and it’s not clear whether he has the operational expertise to investigate, infiltrate, and disrupt the violent movements—of whatever ideology—that threaten the peace in the United States,” Rufo wrote.
Steve Bannon, another prominent Trump supporter, piled on, noting that those close to Robinson had turned him in, calling the arrest “not great law enforcement work.” Even President Trump, while defending Patel in a Saturday interview with Fox News Channel’s Maria Bartiromo, acknowledged the scrutiny: “Kash and the FBI have done a great job,” Trump said, but the praise rang hollow amid the GOP infighting.
Undeterred, Patel pushed back aggressively on Monday morning during an appearance on Fox & Friends. Defending his transparency pledge—a cornerstone of his vow to dismantle the “deep state” bureaucracy he inherited—Patel dismissed the criticism as partisan noise. “I was being transparent with working with the public on our findings as I had them,” he said. “I stated in that message that we had a subject and that we were going to interview him, and we did, and he was released. Could I have worded it a little better in the heat of the moment, sure, but do I regret putting it out? Absolutely not.”
He added: “I challenge anyone out there to find a director that has been more transparent.” Patel also highlighted his decision to release photographs of Robinson while he was at large, crediting it with facilitating the eventual arrest. The FBI rarely comments publicly on ongoing probes, making Patel’s approach a deliberate departure from precedent.
The Kirk investigation isn’t the only flashpoint. Democrats, led by Senate Judiciary Committee members like Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), have teed up questions about broader politicization of the bureau. Schiff posted a video on X last week previewing his line of inquiry, compiling past Patel statements critical of the “deep state.” Patel fired back swiftly: “Let’s find out who law enforcement backs… and who supports defunding the police—answer coming tomorrow, but we already know.”
On the left, concerns center on a recent FBI review of Jeffrey Epstein’s files, which culminated in a memo deeming further releases unnecessary despite earlier promises. House Judiciary ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) fired off a letter to Patel last week demanding details: “Obvious questions abound: why were so many agents tasked with reviewing documents that were never released? What specific instructions were they given during the review? What information did these agents uncover that led DOJ and FBI to reverse their promise to release the files, and how are these decisions related to the President?”
Raskin specifically asked when Patel became aware of references to Trump in the files and for a breakdown of resources devoted to the review. The Epstein matter has faded somewhat amid the Kirk fallout, but it’s expected to resurface as evidence of alleged favoritism.
Compounding the pressure is a federal lawsuit filed last week by three top FBI officials ousted in August, including former acting director Brian Driscoll. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accuses Patel of orchestrating the firings as part of a White House-directed purge targeting those seen as disloyal. Driscoll, who clashed with Trump administration officials early in the president’s second term, and two other high-ranking agents allege the removals were illegal and retaliatory.
The suit details a conversation between Patel and Emil Bove, then a senior Justice Department official, in which Patel reportedly admitted the firings were non-negotiable to safeguard his position. “Patel explained that he had to fire the people his superiors told him to fire, because his ability to keep his own job depended on the removal of the agents who worked on cases involving the President,” the complaint states. It further claims Patel referenced the FBI’s past investigations into Trump, saying, “the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it.” Driscoll believed “superiors” meant the Justice Department and White House, a claim Patel did not refute in the recounted exchange.
White House aide Stephen Miller is named in the suit, with allegations that he demanded “summary firings” via Bove. The firings have decimated FBI leadership: Since Trump’s January 2025 inauguration, the administration has axed all top career officials overseeing key branches, multiple special agents in charge of field offices, and counterterrorism expert Mehtab Syed, who was set to lead the Salt Lake Field Office in February. Current and former officials say the upheaval has sapped morale and hampered operations at a time of rising political violence.
Democrats argue these moves echo Patel’s confirmation hearing promises gone awry, while Republicans on the committee—holding the majority—plan to rally around him. They expect to laud his emphasis on combating violent crime and illegal immigration, and press for updates on the Kirk probe, including Robinson’s motives tied to leftist extremism.
Patel’s tenure, now eight months old, has been marked by vows to root out institutional bias. A vocal critic of the multiple probes into Trump during his first term, Patel has redirected resources toward reexamining the 2016 Russia investigation into potential Trump campaign coordination. Agents and prosecutors are reportedly seeking interviews on those long-dormant threads, which Patel frames as correcting past weaponization of the FBI and DOJ.
As the hearing looms, Patel shows no signs of backing down. His combative style—evident in his X clapback at Schiff and on-air defenses—suggests Tuesday’s testimony will be as much a battle as an oversight session. For a director who campaigned on transparency and reform, the spotlight could either solidify his reformist image or expose fractures in his leadership of America’s premier law enforcement agency.