If you like articles from The Big Con, hit the like button, subscribe, comment, and recommend us in your Substack recommendations. It really helps get the newsletter to more people.
The recent House Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight hearing, titled “Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and a Bureau in Decline,” revealed concerning patterns of federal law enforcement weaponization that transcend any single administration. However, evidence suggests the politicization of the FBI reached new heights during the Biden administration, potentially exacerbated by leadership vacuum issues at the highest levels of government.
Recent revelations about President Biden's cognitive decline during his final period in office raise legitimate questions about who was directing federal law enforcement priorities. When the Commander-in-Chief reportedly couldn't remember if he was President of the United States or "President of NATO," it creates a governance environment where unelected bureaucrats and political appointees can advance agendas without proper oversight.
Democrats on the committee expressed their own concerns about weaponization but from a different angle. They warned that the current administration is using the FBI for "retribution" against perceived enemies, citing former President Trump's campaign promises to go after those who had investigated or prosecuted him. These Democratic members painted a picture of an agency being transformed into an instrument of revenge rather than justice, with resources being diverted away from legitimate national security threats toward politically motivated investigations of Trump's critics. Whether these fears are justified or represent partisan hyperbole, they highlight the fundamental issue at hand: the persistent temptation to use federal law enforcement for political purposes rather than the pursuit of justice.
The hearing testimony reveals a troubling pattern: when executive leadership is compromised, federal agencies become more susceptible to political influence and mission drift. This is not a partisan observation but a structural concern that should worry all Americans, regardless of their political affiliation. Everyone should watch the entire hearing firsthand to see where they land on this issue.
The Partisan Divide: Competing Visions of the FBI's Role and Failings
The hearing revealed stark partisan differences in how members interpreted the FBI's actions across administrations. Republicans presented evidence of what they view as systematic weaponization of the FBI against conservatives, religious Americans, and political opponents of the Biden administration. Chairman Van Drew framed the hearing as exposing an agency that "became a sword" against Americans rather than a shield protecting them. Republican members cited specific examples of FBI resources being diverted toward politically motivated investigations rather than pursuing violent criminals and protecting public safety.
Key to the Republican argument was the stark contrast between the previous leadership of the FBI and DOJ under Wray and Garland, and the current approach under Patel and Bondi. Chairman Jordan highlighted that the foreign influence task force responsible for "censoring Americans" has been disbanded, the school boards memorandum has been rescinded, and document production to Congress has dramatically improved.
Democrats, however, dismissed Republican claims as "recycled" conspiracy theories and instead focused on what they described as the current administration's transformation of the FBI into a tool for political retribution. Ranking Member Crockett characterized the hearing as a "dog and pony show" designed to distract from policy failures. At the same time, Ranking Member Raskin argued that the FBI under previous leadership was acting appropriately in investigating January 6th participants and that the current administration is neglecting legitimate national security concerns.
Democrats further claimed the current administration is targeting political enemies while protecting allies, citing the case of New York City Mayor Adams as an example of charges being dropped for political reasons. They argued that the FBI was previously following evidence and enforcing laws regardless of politics, pointing to the prosecution of Democratic politicians like Senator Menendez as evidence that the FBI was not politically biased against Republicans during the Biden administration.
Despite these conflicting narratives, there was an underlying agreement that the FBI's credibility has been severely damaged. Both sides expressed concern about politicization of the agency, though they disagreed sharply on when the politicization occurred and who was responsible. The testimony from former FBI agents Nicole Parker, Stewart Whitson, and Dr. Luke William Hunt suggested that the problems within the Bureau transcend any single administration. However, they characterized the issues as having intensified in recent years.
Red Flags: Critical Issues That Demand Reform
The oversight hearing exposed systemic problems plaguing the FBI that go beyond mere partisan disagreements. Through witness testimony and congressional questioning, a disturbing pattern emerged of institutional failures that have compromised both the Bureau's effectiveness and its constitutional role.
These issues aren't merely administrative shortcomings—they represent fundamental breaches in the relationship between citizens and their government, with real-world consequences that have cost lives, undermined civil liberties, and eroded public trust. The following key issues were supported by specific incidents that demonstrate the scope and severity of the FBI's drift from its core mission.
1. Deadly Misallocation of Resources
Perhaps most disturbing was former FBI Special Agent Nicole Parker's testimony about the February 2021 deaths of FBI Miami Special Agents Laura Schwartzenberger and Daniel Alfin, who were killed while executing a search warrant on a child predator without SWAT support. Parker testified that SWAT resources were being diverted to arrest non-violent January 6 offenders, stating: "If SWAT had been there that morning, they would still be alive."
Parker further revealed that the FBI didn't even cover the memorial services for these fallen agents, requiring a private donor to fund them. At the same time, the Bureau spent "exorbitant amounts of money on non-mission-based projects, such as transitioning to electric vehicles, January 6 investigations, and diversity initiatives."
2. Religious and Parental Targeting
Multiple witnesses testified about the FBI's targeting of specific religious groups:
The "Traditional Catholics" memorandum from the Richmond field office categorized certain Catholics as potential extremists.
The use of the Southern Poverty Law Center's controversial "hate map" in intelligence gathering
A raid on a Hindu temple in New Jersey where agents allegedly "held guns to the faces of the holy men"
Additionally, parents speaking at school board meetings were reportedly investigated as potential domestic terrorists, creating a chilling effect on First Amendment-protected speech.
3. Interference in Information Flow
Chairman Jordan highlighted newly released text messages between FBI agents regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story from October 2020. Despite the FBI confirming to Twitter at a meeting that the laptop was authentic, subsequent communications instructed that "nobody on the call is authorized to comment on the New York Post story" while acknowledging, "Twitter is treating this as disinformation."
FBI Chat logs on the Hunter laptop story from October 14, 2020. Source: https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1907098410215199072
This strategic withholding of information represents a particularly insidious form of manipulation that borders on psychological conditioning. When federal agencies selectively conceal truth while allowing falsehoods to propagate, they effectively engage in a soft form of brainwashing that shapes public perception without direct coercion. By creating information vacuums that get filled with politically convenient narratives, agencies like the FBI can influence election outcomes and policy debates while maintaining plausible deniability. We've seen this pattern repeatedly in recent history—from the fraudulent intelligence claims about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction that led to war, to various Covid fallacies that shifted with political expediency, to the coordinated dismissal of legitimate concerns about President Biden's cognitive abilities despite mounting evidence.
The public, denied access to facts needed for informed decision-making, becomes susceptible to accepting official narratives out of necessity. This manipulation is especially dangerous when deployed during critical moments, such as presidential elections, as it undermines the very foundation of democratic governance—the citizens' right to make informed choices based on unfiltered truth.
4. Questionable Uses of Confidential Human Sources
The hearing revealed that an Inspector General report identified 26 FBI confidential human sources present at the Capitol on January 6, with 17 entering restricted areas and 4 entering the Capitol building itself. Two were specifically tasked to be there by the FBI. Questions remain about their authorization, role, and why none faced charges despite entering restricted areas.
The concerns about FBI informant conduct extend beyond January 6th. A particularly troubling case that exemplifies these issues is the alleged plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020. Court proceedings revealed that at least 12 confidential informants were involved in the investigation—nearly matching the number of defendants. Defense attorneys successfully argued that these informants didn't merely observe but actively participated in and encouraged the plot's development. Key FBI informants were found to have played central roles in the group's activities, including organizing meetings, paying for travel, and encouraging the targets to take specific actions. This controversial case resulted in acquittals and hung juries for some defendants, with the court explicitly noting concerns about possible entrapment. The Whitmer case highlights the thin line between legitimate investigation and manufacturing threats, raising serious questions about whether some FBI operations create the very dangers they claim to prevent.
This pattern of extensive confidential human source deployment, both in the Whitmer case and on January 6th, suggests a troubling trend of the FBI potentially crossing the line from investigation into instigation—a practice that undermines legitimate law enforcement and raises profound constitutional concerns.
5. Organizational Structure Problems
Witnesses identified several interconnected structural issues that have contributed to the FBI's drift from its core mission. The excessive concentration of personnel in Washington, D.C.—approximately one-third of all FBI employees—has created a bureaucratic culture that is disconnected from the communities the Bureau is meant to serve. This DC-centric approach not only increases operational costs but also insulates decision-makers from the realities of crime and law enforcement across the country.
Compounding this problem is a top-heavy bureaucracy with excessive senior executive positions, which creates layers of management that slow decision-making and dilute accountability. Several witnesses highlighted the fundamental shift that occurred following 9/11, when the FBI transitioned from its traditional law enforcement focus to an intelligence-gathering agency. This transformation, while well-intentioned as a response to terrorist threats, has enabled mission creep and blurred the lines between legitimate law enforcement and surveillance activities.
Perhaps most concerning is the lack of robust accountability mechanisms for agents and officials who abuse their power. Unlike in the private sector, where misconduct typically results in termination, FBI employees who engage in politically motivated investigations or other abuses often face minimal consequences, creating a culture where overreach is tacitly permitted.
From Broken to Trusted: Experts Offer Path to Restoration
The witnesses before the subcommittee did not merely catalog problems—they offered substantive, actionable solutions drawn from decades of combined experience within the Bureau. Their recommendations transcended partisan politics, focusing instead on structural, procedural, and cultural reforms that could restore the FBI to its proper role regardless of which party controls the White House.
While some solutions may require legislative action, others could be implemented immediately through executive authority or internal policy changes. Here are the witness’s significant areas for improvement:
1. Accountability at All Levels
Stewart Whitson emphasized the urgent need for "cleaning house" of entrenched bureaucrats who resist reform efforts. He testified that while most FBI employees are dedicated professionals, the few who undermine leadership or have engaged in past abuses must be removed to restore credibility. Richard Stout reinforced this point by advocating a return to "fact-based investigations" rather than the post-9/11 shift toward intelligence collection and analysis based on "best guesses" rather than concrete evidence. This fundamental reorientation would require leadership committed to the Bureau's traditional law enforcement mission. Nicole Parker provided perhaps the most pointed recommendation on accountability, calling for meaningful consequences for those who "abuse law enforcement power to push political and social agendas." She drew parallels to private sector accountability, noting that in her previous career in finance, non-performance or misconduct resulted in swift termination—a standard she believes should also apply to federal employees.
2. Structural Reforms
Relocating the FBI headquarters outside Washington, DC, emerged as a central recommendation across multiple witnesses' testimony. This move would serve multiple purposes: reducing costs in an expensive metropolitan area, decreasing political influence by distancing the Bureau from the DC establishment, and allowing for recruitment from a more diverse cross-section of Americans. Whitson noted that approximately one-third of all FBI employees are currently stationed in the DC area despite crime happening nationwide.
The proposed reorganization would include reducing headquarters staff while increasing field office personnel, effectively pushing resources closer to the communities being served. Consolidating duplicative units and streamlining the organizational structure would eliminate wasteful bureaucracy and improve operational efficiency. Witnesses agreed that the Bureau should return to a law enforcement-centric mission rather than continuing its post-9/11 evolution into an intelligence agency, which has contributed to mission creep and raised concerns about civil liberties.
3. Legal and Procedural Safeguards
Dr. Luke Hunt provided one of the most specific and actionable recommendations: requiring proper predication for all FBI investigations, including "assessments," which currently can be opened without factual basis. This requirement would ensure that investigations are grounded in evidence rather than being influenced by political considerations or arbitrary discretion.
Several witnesses supported the creation of enhanced penalties for FBI employees who abuse their power, potentially including criminal sanctions for the most egregious violations. The consistent application of use-of-force protocols regardless of political context was emphasized following testimony about the disparate treatment of January 6 defendants compared to other cases.
A return to merit-based hiring, rather than diversity-focused initiatives, was advocated by multiple witnesses who argued that the quality of personnel, not demographic characteristics, should be the primary consideration in building a professional law enforcement agency.
4. Transparency Measures
Improving responsiveness to congressional oversight requests was identified as essential to rebuilding trust. Whitson emphasized that transparency is the key to restoring public confidence, even if it initially reveals uncomfortable truths about past misconduct. Chairman Jordan highlighted the contrast in document production between the previous and current leadership, suggesting that a willingness to cooperate with oversight is critical to legitimate governance.
The witnesses agreed that the Bureau's tendency toward excessive secrecy has contributed to public suspicion and the development of conspiracy theories. Making more information available about the FBI's activities—while protecting legitimate operational security concerns—would help citizens understand and evaluate the Bureau's performance without relying on partisan narratives from either side.
Conclusion
The politicization of federal law enforcement represents a grave threat to constitutional governance, regardless of which party controls the White House. While the hearing revealed concerning patterns during the previous administration, the ultimate goal must be establishing safeguards that prevent weaponization under any administration.
As the testimony demonstrated, FBI agents on the ground overwhelmingly want to focus on protecting communities from violent crime and genuine threats rather than pursuing political agendas. The vast majority of special agents join the Bureau to uphold the Constitution and serve their country, not to advance partisan interests.
Rebuilding public trust in the FBI will require bipartisan commitment to transparency, accountability, and a return to the Bureau's core law enforcement mission. Americans of all political persuasions should be able to agree that federal law enforcement should never be a tool for political targeting, regardless of who occupies the White House.
What do you think? Has the FBI become weaponized—or is this pure partisan politics? Drop your thoughts below.
Share this post