Kash Patel PANIC as Chris Van Hollen CALLED OUT his Bullsh*t in Congress

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on Senator Collins' question regarding reports that a lot of the FBI investigators involved in reviewing the cases for January 6th were going to be purged, the Vice Chair, Senator Murray, myself, and many of my colleagues on this subcommittee wrote Attorney General Bondi a letter on February 8th. We've not gotten a response from them. That letter was directed at exactly this issue. Director Patel, can you track down that letter in the system and work with the Attorney General to get us a response? We wrote on February 8th about exactly the issues that Senator Collins just raised. I'll track it down, sir. Okay. Well, we will be hoping to get a response and insisting on a response. Let me ask you about the spend plan for fiscal year 2025. This is supposed to be a hearing I know on fiscal year 2026 budget. I said we got a little paragraph from the FBI about that. One of the things this committee and the law requires are spend plans for the current fiscal year. In fact, when we pass the continuing resolution, we require that agencies provide their spend plans for fiscal year 2025 within 45 days of enactment. We're now 54 days after that and we've gotten nothing from the FBI. This is a typical spend plan, for example. This is for fiscal year 2024, the most recent fiscal year. Director Patel, will you comply with the requirement that the FBI submit a spend plan? Senator, I will comply with the requirement and I believe I have to work with OMB on the apportionment of that. So we're working on that. Can you give us a date? The fiscal year 2025 is ticking away. Can you give us a date by which we'll get the spend plan that's already overdue? I'll speak with OMB and get back to you on a date. So the hang up right now is OMB? It's an interagency process, sir. I'm working through how to get these spend plans forward. But the ball is in OMB's court right now, not the FBI's court, is what you're telling me? It's in both of our courts. Okay. Well, right now, you know, as one of the lead law enforcement officers, you're out of compliance with the requirements of the law. So I hope you will lead by example and get it to us. With respect to the congressional budget justification here, we don't have one. In other words, we have your one paragraph. We usually get, as I mentioned in my opening statement, a full justification, which helps this committee do its work in terms of putting together the budget. Can we – I believe that's within the entire domain of the FBI. Can you commit to getting us the budget justification for the FBI? I will work with the department to do that. Okay. So that's a yes? I will work with the department. I have to report to DOJ on that and work with them to get you that plan. All right. Well, you know, I'm glad we're holding this hearing, but we obviously – Mr. Chairman, we really don't have a budget to work with. Let me ask you about your testimony the other day in the House, Mr. Director, where I think you conceded that the budget request, as skinny as it is, was really not adequate to meet the mission. In fact, I think you testified that you would really need another billion dollars. So would you agree that this budget that's been submitted is inadequate to meet the needs and that your testimony yesterday about another billion dollars are required to meet the mission? Is that your view? Senator, I think my view is that – my view is that we will make and agree with this budget as it stands and make it work for the operational necessity of the FBI. And as the head of the FBI, I was simply asking for more funds because I can do more with more money. Well, I – look, I understand that OMB has a say in this, obviously, but I think your testimony yesterday was important and revealing that, as the director, you believe that another billion dollars over and above the current level is really necessary to complete the mission. And it does put this subcommittee in a difficult position because, really, that's – we rely on you and others to persuade the OMB and the president to submit a budget that meets the needs and requirements of the FBI. And clearly, at least based on your testimony in the House, you don't think that that's happened. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen. Let's talk about that reduction of $545 million to the FBI base resources. It's certainly true we don't have a budget. Certainly the conclusion that, with what we have, it made sense to proceed with these hearings so that the appropriations process can continue. And we look to Director Patel to help fill in spaces as to what is going to occur based upon what he knows, which, presumably, is maybe significantly more than what we know is the plan at the FBI. The document that we have received asserts that savings, this $545 million, can come from reductions in DEI programs, pet projects of the former administration, and duplicative intelligence activities. Is that accurate? Is that capable of being done, that we can find this in what I suppose most people around here call waste, fraud, and abuse? Or does it have real consequences to the level of personnel and the capabilities of meeting the mission of the FBI? Well, I think my job, Senator, is to make sure we can find it. We've identified a lot of it already, and we'll continue to do it, irrespective of where the budget lands, because we can't have waste, fraud, and abuse. But I'll make the mission work on whatever budget we're given. But that means lowering the mission, right? I think right now where we are, Senator, is that stepping back from four, three, two years ago, there's vacancies at the Bureau that have been held vacant for a number of years. So while the Bureau is on the books for 38,000 folks, over the last three years and two years that has been treated down to about 35 and change, because those vacancies have gone unfunded. And so we're not in a position right now to say, let's just hire 3,000 people back. We couldn't do that if we even had the money tomorrow. That would take quite some time. And so we have been working on the numbers that we currently are at. And I think the budget that we've put forward would not force me to remove active duty line agents is the mission I'm protecting against. Director, when you say the budget we put together, you're talking about the skinny budget that we're seeing. What more would you be able to do if you were able to fill those vacancies? If we were able to fill those vacancies, we would continue expanding upon the project that I started about reorienting assets across America and growing our facilities in places like Pochitello and Redstone and West Virginia, where we have CEGIS and some other campuses. So those are things we could do. Tell me what concerns you or I or the rest of us should have in the departure of senior members of the FBI if the budget is insufficient to fill positions. How do we keep senior officers from retiring? I think, Senator, it's just a problem everybody has. If people want to retire, they're going to retire. The good news is from the folks that I've met in the Bureau, we've been able to retain significant levels of senior leadership, both in Washington and throughout the country. And so I think with the renewed mission that we have under this administration, folks are just standing in line to continue to take on the mission set. And they've adjusted over the last few years to doing more with less. Director, I don't think it's part of the skinny budget, but there's a proposal afoot to increase the number of years, the calculation from three years to five years on retirement benefits. I'm told that has a consequence on people who are already eligible to retire, would decide to perhaps decide to retire now, despite their commitment to the FBI or other law enforcement agencies. Is that a concern? Senator, I'm not read up on that, so I'll have to get back to you on that one specifically. And then finally, let me ask about the cooperation. What's your relationship? What's the FBI's relationship, your relationship as the director with other federal law enforcement agencies? It's always been my goal, and I've only succeeded once when I chaired this subcommittee before, to have not only the FBI director appear before us, but also DEA, ATF, and the U.S. Marshals. Would you, in their absence this morning, because they're not capable of being here, would you give us your rundown on the relationship between the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies? What's the level of cooperation, and are they doing the job that helps you do yours as well? It's incredible. And I'll just give you a simple example, Senator. One of the initiatives that we stood up at the FBI was the Homeland Security Task Force. And the first place we took it was the state of Virginia, just because of geography. And what we did was DEA, DHS, FBI, HSI, state, local authorities, Virginia state authorities, all nested in an FBI facility in the state of Virginia to cover down on what we call their first operation for Homeland Security Task Force. And it was a simple phone call to the leadership at the DEA, at DHS, at FBI. And I said, hey, I need 20 guys and gals here. I need 40 guys and gals here. And the governor said, we're going to give you 50. And what we did in one month was arrest 500 individuals and violent felons in the state of Virginia. And that's, to me, speaks to the quality of the relationship we have across the interagency. And we want to take that model to other states across this country. And that's what we're looking to do. Thank you, Director. The recent Senate appropriations hearing featuring questioning by Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland provides a rich window into the complex interplay between governance, law enforcement funding, and democratic accountability in contemporary American politics. The discussion centered on the FBI's fiscal year 2025 and 2026 budgets, compliance with congressional mandates, and the ongoing operational challenges posed by vacancies and budget shortfalls. Although at first glance, this might seem like a technocratic conversation on spending, the political subtext is deeply significant. The exchange underscores the Democratic Party's broader concerns about institutional integrity, transparency, and readiness in the face of mounting threats, especially in light of the January 6th insurrection and ongoing right-wing extremism. Analyzed through a democratic lens, the hearing exposes a persistent Republican-driven starvation of federal law enforcement resources, a lack of respect for legislative oversight mechanisms, and a dangerous flirtation with undermining accountability for political reasons. This essay explores the political meaning of the exchange, reflects on its alignment with democratic principles, and evaluates its implications for U.S. politics and future trends. One of the defining elements of the hearing was the emphasis placed by Senator Van Hollen on compliance with congressional requirements, particularly in regard to spend plans and budget justifications. The Senator raised concerns about the FBI's failure to submit required documentation, an omission that leaves Congress, and by extension the American public, without insight into how public funds are being allocated. This is not a mere bureaucratic oversight, it signals a broader threat to democratic governance. From a democratic perspective, this lack of transparency is emblematic of a dangerous erosion of institutional accountability that has been emboldened by Trump-era hostility to oversight. Democrats have long emphasized the need for executive agencies, including law enforcement, to remain firmly under congressional control to ensure legitimacy and public trust. When federal agencies fail to comply with statutory mandates, it not only hampers effective governance but also fuels public cynicism of dynamic Republicans have exploited to further their anti-government narratives. Director Patel's repeated references to interagency delays with the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, do little to deflect the core issue, the FBI is out of compliance with the law. Senator Van Hollen's persistence in extracting a commitment from Patel, however vague, is a clear assertion of congressional authority. This exchange affirms the Democratic Party's role as the guardian of institutional checks and balances. Another significant threat in the hearing was the conversation around budget shortfalls. Senator Van Hollen pointedly referenced Director Patel's prior testimony in the House that the FBI would require an additional $1 billion to fully meet its mission. This is not a trivial request. It comes at a time when the FBI faces multifaceted threats, from domestic terrorism and cybercrime to international espionage and organized crime, yet the Biden administration's submitted budget appears to underfund the FBI's operational needs, a reality that Patel reluctantly acknowledged. Van Hollen's frustration is palpable. The lack of adequate funding doesn't just affect the FBI's capabilities. It handicaps Congress's ability to legislate effectively. Without robust, transparent input from the agency, lawmakers cannot make informed decisions. Here, the Democratic critique of Republican-driven austerity comes into sharp relief. While Democrats have advocated for smart, strategic investments in law enforcement, particularly in areas like domestic terrorism, civil rights enforcement, and cybersecurity, Republicans have repeatedly pushed cuts disguised as efficiency reforms. The hearing referenced a $545 million reduction in FBI resources, with justifications that included slashing DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion, programs and duplicative intelligence efforts, code phrases that often mask ideologically-driven attacks on progressive initiatives. The Democratic perspective rejects the notion that efficiency should come at the expense of mission-critical capacities or inclusive hiring practices. Senator Van Hollen's questioning implicitly rejects this frame, emphasizing that budget cuts will inevitably mean fewer agents, less proactive intelligence, and a diminished capacity to protect the American people, especially in an era of rising political violence and threats to democracy. Early in the transcript, Van Hollen referenced the lack of response from the Attorney General regarding a February 8th letter concerning reports that FBI investigators involved in January 6th prosecutions were being purged. This issue is politically explosive, and its inclusion in the hearing shifts the conversation from technical funding debates to broader questions of political retribution and institutional survival. The Democratic view holds that the January 6th insurrection was not just a criminal event, but a constitutional crisis. Investigating and prosecuting those responsible, including members of extremist militias, elected officials, and possibly even collaborators within law enforcement, is critical to restoring democratic norms. Any attempt to purge or sideline those involved in the investigations risks turning the FBI into a politicized institution vulnerable to the winds of authoritarian actors. Van Hollen's insistence on a response reflects a democratic commitment to transparency and continuity in the rule of law. The failure to respond is itself telling and illustrates the extent to which even post-Trump institutions continue to tiptoe around far-right sensitivities. This unwillingness to confront threats to democracy directly and forcefully is one of the most urgent critiques Democrats have leveled against both the GOP and occasionally the bureaucratic inertia within the executive branch. A crucial theme throughout the testimony was the issue of vacant positions within the FBI, with the director acknowledging that staffing levels had dropped from 38,000 to roughly 35,000 over several years. Importantly, these vacancies have not been due solely to funding shortfalls, but also to systemic disinvestment and recruitment challenges. From a democratic perspective, this is a dangerous trend. A hollowed-out FBI is one less capable of countering white nationalist violence, cyber attacks, and foreign disinformation campaigns, all issues the GOP has been far less willing to prioritize. The attrition of senior officers and the inability to replace them compounds the agency's vulnerabilities. Van Hollen's questions about how these vacancies affect national security point to a foundational democratic belief—government agencies must be properly resourced and staffed to meet modern challenges. Calls to do more with less are viewed not as virtues but as cynical attempts to undermine the capacity of government and shift blame when things go wrong. Toward the end of the hearing, Director Patel offered insight into the FBI's cooperation with other federal agencies, describing successful multi-agency task forces. While this testimony was more optimistic, it fits squarely within the democratic policy approach of whole-of-government responses to complex security threats. Democrats have long advocated for increased cooperation between federal, state, and local law enforcement, especially in counterterrorism, gun violence, and public health emergencies. Patel's reference to successful operations in Virginia involving DEA, DHS, and local police reinforces this vision and provides a rare bipartisan point of agreement. Yet, even here, the specter of underfunding looms large. Robust cooperation requires robust resources, facilities, training, and trust. As Democrats seek to rebuild institutional legitimacy in the wake of right-wing assaults on the deep state, interagency cohesion becomes not just a policy tool but a symbol of democratic resilience. This hearing, while centered on FBI funding, speaks to deeper political currents shaping the future of American governance. Democrats, embodied by Van Hollen's persistent questioning, are increasingly positioning themselves as defenders of both security and constitutional order. In contrast, the Republican Party's reflexive skepticism toward federal law enforcement, particularly in matters of political accountability, continues to undermine national readiness. Looking ahead, this conversation may foreshadow several key developments in U.S. politics. Firstly, Democrats will likely continue to push for greater funding for institutions like the FBI, but with conditions tied to transparency, diversity, and public accountability. This is part of a broader move to reclaim patriotism from reactionary forces and redefine it through civic responsibility. Secondly, there will be mounting pressure on the Biden administration to resist internal constraints from OMB and other budget offices and instead align law enforcement funding with national security realities, especially as the threat of political violence grows in an election year. Thirdly, the politicization of federal agencies will remain a battleground, particularly as Republican leaders flirt with purging or defunding institutions that investigate GOP-aligned figures. Democrats will need to mount not only institutional but also rhetorical defenses of public servants and law enforcement officers committed to democratic norms. The exchange between Senator Van Hollen and FBI Director Patel, though ostensibly about fiscal minutiae, serves as a microcosm of the broader political contest facing the United States. For Democrats, the fight to adequately fund, staff, and oversee institutions like the FBI is inseparable from the larger project of defending democracy itself. The hearing makes clear that underfunding, attrition, and evasiveness are not mere bureaucratic issues, they are structural threats. In this political moment where far-right forces continue to threaten the integrity of elections and the safety of public officials, Democrats are right to insist on clarity, investment, and accountability. This hearing, and others like it, will shape not just the federal budget, but the soul of the nation.