Lead
Three former senior FBI officials filed a civil lawsuit on Sept. 10, 2025, naming FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi as defendants. The plaintiffs—former acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll, Steven Jensen and Spencer Evans—say their removals were carried out at the direction of the White House and the Justice Department and that Patel carried out those orders to preserve his own position. The suit alleges Patel told colleagues he had to fire agents whose work touched cases involving the President because his job depended on it. The plaintiffs ask a federal judge to declare the dismissals legally void, secure a name-clearing hearing and reinstate them.
Key Takeaways
- Three former senior FBI officials—Brian Driscoll, Steven Jensen and Spencer Evans—filed suit on Sept. 10, 2025 against Kash Patel and AG Pam Bondi.
- The complaint alleges the firings were directed by the White House and DOJ and that Patel executed those directives to remain in office.
- Driscoll previously resisted a DOJ request to supply a list of agents who worked Jan. 6 investigations; he said the request covered “thousands of employees.”
- Plaintiffs seek a federal ruling that their terminations are a “legal nullity,” a name-clearing hearing and restoration of their positions.
- The FBI declined to comment and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
- NPR and MSNBC first reported news of the lawsuit before NBC News published its account; the suit was filed roughly one month after NBC reported Driscoll’s firing.
- The complaint includes an alleged statement by Patel that “the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it,” which the plaintiffs say explains motive for the removals.
Background
The three plaintiffs are longtime FBI officials who held high-level roles: Brian Driscoll briefly served as acting FBI director at the start of President Donald Trump’s second term; Steven Jensen was assistant director in charge of the Washington field office; and Spencer Evans led the Las Vegas field office. Their departures occurred amid a politically fraught period in which the FBI’s work on Jan. 6 and other investigations drew intense White House scrutiny. Earlier reporting placed Driscoll’s firing in August 2025; the civil complaint was filed on Sept. 10, 2025.
The lawsuit frames the dismissals not as routine personnel actions but as politically motivated removals tied to investigations involving the President. According to the complaint, Patel told employees he had to remove agents designated by his superiors because doing otherwise would jeopardize his tenure. The plaintiffs contend that the Justice Department and White House effectively ordered the firings and that Patel acted as their instrument.
Main Event
On Sept. 10, 2025, the lawsuit was lodged in federal court by the three former officials. It names as defendants Kash Patel, currently serving as FBI Director, and Attorney General Pam Bondi, alleging both coordinated or authorized the dismissals. The complaint presents a narrative in which Patel acknowledged executing superior-directed firings to protect his position and singled out agents associated with probes touching the President.
The filing recalls an episode in which Driscoll resisted a Justice Department request for a roster of agents who had worked Jan. 6-related investigations. In an internal memo at the time, Driscoll said the request implicated thousands of employees and noted his own inclusion among those agents. The complaint links that resistance—and Driscoll’s subsequent removal—to the pattern of personnel changes now challenged in court.
Driscoll, Jensen and Evans seek remedies including a federal declaration that their terminations are void, a name-clearing hearing to restore reputations, and reinstatement to their prior positions. The suit frames those remedies as necessary to correct what the plaintiffs call constitutionally and legally impermissible dismissals. The FBI declined to comment, and DOJ did not immediately reply to requests for comment.
Analysis & Implications
If the court finds the dismissals were products of improper political direction rather than legitimate personnel decisions, the ruling could set an important precedent about the boundaries between executive influence and FBI independence. The FBI’s statutory charter emphasizes political neutrality for agents; a judicial finding of politically motivated firings would sharpen legal limits on removal authority and could prompt tighter oversight or policy safeguards.
Beyond legal precedent, the case raises operational concerns inside the Bureau. If senior managers believe that personnel decisions hinge on pleasing political superiors, morale and willingness to work on sensitive probes—particularly those involving high-level political figures—could suffer. The suit highlights how investigatory staffing decisions intersect with institutional trust and the FBI’s ability to recruit and retain experienced leadership.
Politically, the litigation will likely intensify scrutiny of the relationship between the White House, DOJ and the FBI. A protracted legal fight could produce depositions, document discovery and public testimony that illuminate decision-making channels at the top of federal law enforcement. Internationally, allied intelligence and law-enforcement partners monitor such developments closely, since perceptions of politicization can affect cooperation in shared investigations.
Comparison & Data
| Name | Role | Office | Reported removal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brian Driscoll | Acting FBI Director | FBI Headquarters | Aug 2025 (reported) |
| Steven Jensen | Assistant Director in Charge | Washington Field Office | 2025 (alleged) |
| Spencer Evans | Special Agent in Charge | Las Vegas Field Office | 2025 (alleged) |
The table summarizes the plaintiffs’ roles and the timing reported or alleged in public reporting and the lawsuit. While Driscoll’s August 2025 removal was previously reported, the complaint filed Sept. 10, 2025 formalizes the plaintiffs’ claim that these actions form part of a coordinated personnel purge tied to investigations involving the President.
Reactions & Quotes
News organizations first highlighted the filing and related reporting, and officials tied to the agencies named in the complaint have provided limited public responses. The FBI formally declined to comment on the lawsuit, and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to media inquiries.
He said 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.
Plaintiffs’ summary of an alleged statement by Kash Patel (from the complaint)
The plaintiffs present this alleged statement as central to their claim that Patel carried out superior-directed firings. The line is quoted in the complaint and frames the plaintiffs’ argument about motive and coercion at senior levels.
This request encompasses thousands of employees across the country who have supported these investigative efforts. I am one of those employees.
Brian Driscoll (internal memo cited in complaint)
Driscoll’s memo, as quoted in the complaint, explains why he resisted a DOJ request for personnel lists tied to Jan. 6 investigations. Plaintiffs argue that resistance factored into retaliatory personnel actions.
Unconfirmed
- The complaint alleges the White House and DOJ mandated these specific firings; that allegation remains unproven in court.
- Patel’s alleged statement about the President’s reaction to the FBI’s investigations is reported in the lawsuit but has not been independently verified.
- The long-term personnel consequences at the FBI—whether the plaintiffs will be reinstated or receive other remedies—are not yet determined.
Bottom Line
The lawsuit filed Sept. 10, 2025 elevates an internal personnel dispute into a federal legal challenge that puts the relationship among the FBI, the Justice Department and the White House under scrutiny. The plaintiffs contend their removals were part of a politically directed effort to target agents involved in sensitive investigations; the defendants have not publicly accepted that characterization.
Court proceedings, if they move forward to discovery and hearings, could produce documentary and testimonial evidence clarifying who ordered the firings and why. For policymakers, investigators and the public, the case is likely to sharpen debates about institutional independence, removal authority and safeguards to protect law-enforcement personnel from political reprisal.