Kash Patel as the FBI director feels like the setup to a political satire: a Trump loyalist with no law enforcement leadership experience, best known for a MAGA-themed kids’ book and a conspiracy-laden documentary that even Fox News refused to air. And yet, here we are. If confirmed, Patel wouldn’t just be the first FBI director with a side gig in storytelling—he’d also be the most openly partisan pick in the bureau’s history.
The FBI has always walked a fine line between independence and political influence, but under Patel, that line could blur faster than an out-of-focus surveillance photo. His critics aren’t just worried about his lack of qualifications—they’re alarmed at his track record of treating federal institutions like political toys. This is, after all, the man who helped dismantle the FBI’s Russia investigation and allegedly compiled an “enemies list” of Trump’s political foes. If Hollywood ever needs a villain for Deep State: The Movie, Patel’s résumé writes itself.
There’s also the small matter of his ambitions for the bureau itself. Patel has floated the idea of shutting down FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C.—a move that sounds less like reform and more like revenge. Pair that with the potential to stack the bureau’s leadership with loyalists, and you’re looking at an FBI that might function less as a law enforcement agency and more as a loyalty enforcement squad. Under Patel, subpoenas could fly at Trump’s rivals faster than MAGA hats at a rally.
It’s not just a question of competence—it’s a question of purpose. The FBI has always been America’s firewall against threats to national security, not a tool for settling political scores. But if Patel takes the helm, it’s not hard to imagine the bureau’s priorities shifting. Investigations might suddenly have a suspicious alignment with the whims of the White House, and the independence the FBI prides itself on could be left in shambles.
And yet, let’s not kid ourselves: the FBI isn’t the FSB. Not yet, anyway. America’s democratic institutions—Congress, the courts, and a free press—serve as guardrails against exactly this kind of overreach. Patel might want to centralize power like Putin’s security services, but he’d have to bulldoze through a mountain of oversight to do it. That said, the real danger isn’t a full-blown transformation overnight—it’s death by a thousand cuts. Incremental shifts in culture, staffing, and priorities can erode independence over time, leaving the bureau unrecognizable long after Patel’s tenure.
And then there’s Patel’s creative side, which frankly makes this whole saga even weirder. He’s the author of The Plot Against the King, a children’s book that recasts Trump as a victim of a Deep State conspiracy, and the producer of 2000 Mules, a documentary on election fraud so far out there that even Fox News wouldn’t touch it. If nothing else, Patel’s FBI might be the first to issue subpoenas in rhyming couplets.
His nomination raises one big, uncomfortable question: Is this about leadership, or is it about loyalty? Patel’s appointment isn’t just a test of his ability to lead—it’s a test of whether America’s institutions can withstand the pressure to turn law enforcement into a political weapon. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
For now, the Kash Patel story is still unfolding, but one thing’s clear: it’s going to be a wild ride. Let’s just hope it doesn’t come with a sequel called The Plot Against the FBI.