Who is Kash Patel?

President-elect Donald Trump has stated that he intends to nominate Kash Patel, the right-wing commentator and former intelligence official, to be the next director of the Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI). If confirmed, Patel will lead the nation’s chief criminal investigation agency, as well as its substantial surveillance apparatus.

Patel wore a number of hats during the first Trump administration. He worked in the Department of Justice as a prosecutor, as a national security advisor and senior counsel for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and as a deputy assistant to the president on the National Security Council. In the final months of the first Trump administration, he served as chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense. Since then, Patel has been a frequent contributor on conservative media, including appearing on podcasts hosted by Steve Bannon and Sean Ryan.

While the ACLU does not endorse or oppose nominees for cabinet-level positions as a matter of organizational policy, we have spent more than 100 years holding power accountable. In line with that history, we are examining and publicizing cabinet nominees’ records on civil rights and civil liberties and urging senators to seek and obtain commitments from the nominees on key concerns.

Given its crucial role in law enforcement and surveillance, the FBI can have a serious impact on civil rights and civil liberties. Consequently, ahead of Patel’s confirmation hearing, we analyze his record and stance on key issues, flagging areas for senators to question the nominee and secure commitments to uphold our rights.

The FBI on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

In the federal government’s law enforcement structure, the FBI is the chief investigatory agency with the broadest authority. This tremendous authority has, at times, led to serious abuses of civil rights and civil liberties. For example, in 1975, the Senate formed the Church Committee in part to investigate wide-ranging FBI abuses, including planting informants in civil rights organizations, surveilling and threatening Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and keeping files on 1 million Americans.

The Church Committee’s shocking findings led to reforms at the FBI, but today it now wields significant investigative and surveillance powers, including under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law allows the FBI and other agencies to engage in mass warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications. Although Section 702 requires the government to direct this surveillance at people outside the U.S., in practice, it ensnares Americans who are communicating with those targets. Notably, targets need not have any connection to criminal activity or terrorism; they can be journalists, human-rights workers, or businesspeople discussing U.S. foreign affairs. After acquiring these communications, FBI agents across the country routinely search for Americans’ communications in their Section 702 databases — again, without a warrant.

Over time, Section 702 has morphed into a domestic surveillance tool. FBI agents use Section 702 databases to conduct millions of invasive searches for Americans’ communications, including those of protesters, racial justice activists, 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign, journalists, and even members of Congress. While the number of these warrantless queries has declined in recent years, they’re still happening far too frequently and without the judicial approval the Constitution requires.

Powers like this are even more concerning given President-elect Trump’s expressed desire to investigate and prosecute his perceived “enemies” — journalists, civil servants, and government officials — based on their political views or activities. For example, President-elect Trump has vowed, “I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family.” He expanded this sentiment to include “all others involved with the destruction of our elections, borders, & [sic] country itself!”

On the Record: Patel on Four Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Issues

Patel has made extensive comments on the record that raise significant concerns on crucial civil rights and civil liberties issues, including:

1. Patel has described his desire to target perceived enemies, including the press and civil servants. In September, Patel stated, “We [must] collectively join forces to take on the most powerful enemy that the United States has ever seen, and no it’s not Washington, DC, it’s the mainstream media and these people out there in the fake news. That is our mission!” He has also advocated revoking the security clearances of civil servants who participated in investigations of then-President Trump, describing the list of targets as “massive.”
2. His political allegiance and financial ties to President-elect Trump raise concerns about whether he can maintain the FBI’s traditional and important independence from partisan or political influence. Patel has called himself a member of “Donald Trump’s army,” and described the President-elect as “our juggernaut of justice,” “our leader,” and “our continued warrior in the arena.” He likewise serves on the board of Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), which owns Trump’s Truth Social platform, and has been paid $465,000 to consult for the company.
3. He has falsely accused marginalized groups of wrongdoing and attacked their rights. He spread debunked conspiracy theories regarding undocumented people, stating, “What do you bring in all these people here for? . . . I think the Democrats are smart enough to say, well, we got to figure out a new way to rig the election.”
4. He has, however, also highlighted the dangers of certain kinds of overbroad governmental surveillance. He stated, for example, that “the biggest problem the FBI has had has come out of its intel shops” and asserted that Section 702 — the law that allows the FBI and other agencies to engage in mass warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications — “needs major, major reform — tons,” which is also a longstanding ACLU priority. According to Patel, he would break up the FBI’s intelligence functions and distribute them to other agencies.

Commitments the ACLU Is Urging Senators to Demand at Patel’s Confirmation Hearing

Based on Patel’s record, the ACLU is concerned that he will use the FBI’s authority as a political tool to attack journalists, dissidents, civil society, civil servants, and former officials based on their political views. At his confirmation hearing, we’re urging senators to ask Patel:

1. Will you commit to not using the investigative and surveillance powers of the FBI to target journalists, civil servants, political opponents, or other individuals based on their ideology, speech, journalism, or political or religious activity?
2. Do you commit to ensuring that the FBI does not target individuals to any degree based on other protected characteristics, including race, ethnicity, national origin and nationality, religious beliefs, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability?
3. Will you commit to resigning from TMTG’s board and cutting other financial ties with the President-elect and his immediate family?
4. The claim that there is widespread voting by noncitizens in federal elections, which is already prohibited under federal and state laws, has been thoroughly debunked. Do you commit to refraining from spreading this disinformation and sowing distrust in our elections?
5. Will you commit to addressing FBI abuse of its surveillance authority and domestic investigative authority? In addressing those abuses, which components of the FBI would you spin out, where would those components then be placed, and how would that reorganization protect civil rights and civil liberties?
6. Do you commit to supporting renewed efforts to address surveillance abuses under Section 702, which is the law that permits the FBI and other agencies to engage in warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications? What policies will you implement at the FBI to address those abuses in the meantime?