Two FBI officials familiar with the matter told NBC News on Monday that FBI Director Kash Patel has inquired about setting up a direct phone line to the White House and about retaining a private security detail for himself. Those questions, and importantly, the possible motivation behind them, could be significant and disturbing clues as to how Patel views his job and his agents.
As first reported by The Wall Street Journal on March 7, “according to people familiar with his inquiry” Patel queried officials as to how he might have secure lines installed in his office and home that would go directly to the Oval Office (Ben Williamson, the bureau’s assistant director for public affairs, denied the Journal’s report). If true, this seemingly simple request from Patel points to either an ignorance of how the relationship between an FBI director and the president is supposed to work — and has worked for decades. There’s a reason why a direct line to the president isn’t already sitting on Patel’s desk — let alone in his home or car. It’s not supposed to.
The FBI director’s contact with a president is deliberately supposed to go through the Attorney General.
Here’s what I know based on my 25 years in the FBI, including service as assistant director. Historically, the FBI director’s contact with a president is deliberately supposed to go through the U.S. attorney general. In fact, while the director certainly briefs the president on high-profile matters, the attorney general, deputy attorney general and/or the director of national intelligence are almost always present. The point of this healthy distance between the Oval Office and the FBI director is to mitigate the chance that a president might pressure the director for political purposes. This holds true in the other direction as well: We don’t want a director prematurely tipping off a president that a political ally or adversary is under investigation.
Famously, FBI Director Louis Freeh turned in his White House pass which allowed him to come and go as he pleased, so that each of his visits would have to be deemed as official, and to avoid the appearance that he was too close to Clinton. During President Donald Trump’s first term, Director James Comey found himself alone at dinner with the president. That’s when Trump, according to Comey, twice demanded loyalty from Comey. Comey, to his credit, declined.
Patel’s desire for direct communications with President Trump means he’s either ignorant of the perils of such an arrangement, or he really wants the president’s ear at all hours. It could also mean that President Trump may have asked Patel to set up such a secure line. Regardless, this doesn’t bode well.
Patel’s second question to FBI officials — how to retain a private security detail for himself — may not sound odd (though Ben Williamson denied this report as well). But, in truth, it’s deeply troubling.
The FBI protects two people — the attorney general and the FBI director. The bureau has always provided its own agents, who volunteer for the assignment and go through special executive protection training. Why, then, would Patel ask about private security? We don’t know his reason. Perhaps he doesn’t believe FBI agents can protect him for the assignment. Perhaps he doesn’t like the idea of law enforcement agents loyal to the Constitution — not to a president — being so close at hand. Maybe the phone question and the security detail question are linked: If you want to securely talk to the president everywhere you go, just maybe you don’t want FBI agents hearing what you tell the president.
Whatever his reasons, Patel’s queries are important indicators of how he may conduct himself as director. Whether he intended to or not, his question about a private detail signals his agents that he doesn’t trust them. His query about a direct line to Trump is further evidence that Patel may be more interested in being a political lackey than a neutral, nonpartisan law man. That attitude may work for many positions in Washington, but it does not belong at the FBI.
