Patel and Bondi Sued by Two Fired FBI Agents Who Investigated Efforts to Overturn 2020 Election

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Two former FBI agents have filed a lawsuit against the FBI, Department of Justice, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Attorney General Pam Bondi alleging that they were fired solely because they were assigned to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and therefore their terminations were in violation of their constitutional rights.

The two plaintiffs filed their 41-page complaint with their identities under seal as “John Doe 1” and “John Doe 2” in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday, stating that they were both formerly FBI Special Agents who “were assigned to an investigation into a suspected conspiracy to illegally overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election,” known as “Arctic Frost.”

The plaintiffs “were assigned to Arctic Frost by their superiors within the FBI,” and it was “one of many investigations to which Plaintiffs were assigned” during their employment, the complaint stated.

The Arctic Frost investigation ended up transferred to Special Counsel Jack Smith, leading to the indictment of President Donald Trump by a federal grand jury in 2023. After Trump was re-elected in 2024, the DOJ moved to dismiss the indictment, citing agency policy to not prosecute sitting presidents.

“In Arctic Frost, as in all other investigations to which they were assigned, Plaintiffs fully adhered to DOJ policies and procedures, including applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and executed their law enforcement duties without bias or political motive,” the complaint continued, noting that both the “strategic decisions” guiding the investigation and the eventual “prosecutorial decisions” were made by DOJ attorneys.

The two plaintiffs were fired in October and November 2025, according to the complaint, after Republican members of Congress “publicly released unredacted documents associated with Arctic Frost, which contained one Plaintiff’s name” and “[t]he legislators publicly declared Arctic Frost agents to be partisan operatives.” Their terminations were “based solely on their assignment to Arctic Frost,” the complaint argued.

“No internal investigation, notice, or hearing preceded their firings. Nor were Plaintiffs presented with any evidence purportedly supporting their firings or given an opportunity to appeal,” the complaint argued,” but instead Patel “terminated their FBI
employment based solely on their assignment to Arctic Frost” because of Bondi, Trump, “and others who urged the agents’ firings perceived the agents to be politically opposed to President Trump because of the agents’ assignment to Arctic Frost.”

Patel and Trump also “made public statements impugning the integrity of Arctic Frost agents, with Patel most recently
disparaging the agents he terminated as ‘corrupt actors’ who had engaged in ‘weaponized law enforcement.'”

The complaint describes in detail the plaintiffs’ “Exemplary” employment records with the FBI, noting that John Doe 1 had “served with the FBI for over 21 years,” “would have been eligible to retire with a full pension in 2028,” “was the primary or sole agent on multiple fraud and white-collar investigations,” “received multiple awards for outstanding performance,” and “had a pristine disciplinary record.”

John Doe 2 had been with the FBI for eight years when he was fired and also had received multiple awards and recognition, and he “was never subject to any disciplinary action or even a complaint.” The complaint further noted several examples of when Patel himself singled out John Doe 2 for praise:

By the time of his firing in November 2025, John Doe 2 had become a senior CR-10 case agent and was one of the main agents on a sensitive fraud against the government investigation that the Trump DOJ considered a high priority. Due to his deep knowledge of that case and superb communication skills, John Doe 2 was himself tasked to brief Defendant Patel—an unusual assignment for a line agent. John Doe 2 met with Patel in person for that briefing on October 1, 2025, after which Patel told him, “good work, keep going.”

In addition to his primary duty as a case agent, John Doe 2 volunteered to take on collateral responsibilities. At the time of his firing, John Doe 2 was a senior member of the WFO Crisis Negotiation Team and had participated in several successful resolutions of incidents involving barricaded subjects and victims. John Doe 2 was also training for selection to become a WFO Special Weapons and Tactics (“SWAT”) operator, a role which requires intensive physical activity, and he therefore would dedicate several hours each day to maintaining high physical fitness standards. During his morning workouts at the FBI Headquarters gym, John Doe 2 frequently encountered Defendant Patel, and even once received a “fist pump” from Patel when Patel saw him exercising on a holiday.

The plaintiffs’ firings were a violation of FBI policy, the complaint argued, because none of the permissible reasons for terminating them were present:

FBI policies and practices communicate that non-probationary Special Agents may be removed or terminated only for job-related reasons: unacceptable performance, abuse of leave, misconduct, national security concerns, or inability to perform the essential duties and responsibilities of their position.

Written policies delineate permissible bases for removal or termination of Special Agents and establish processes that must be followed in connection with any such removal or termination.

Furthermore, the complaint argued, neither plaintiff had a major role in the Arctic Frost investigation, describing John Doe 1’s role as “limited,” “largely administrative and ministerial,” and focused mostly on “downloading subpoena productions as they came in and uploading the information to the shared drive cloud folder where the rest of the investigative team could access it.”

John Doe 2’s role on the investigation was “a detour from his regular duties, at the direction of a supervisor,” and he “was never one of the primary or lead agents on Arctic Frost, but rather played a supporting role, handling tasks such as recording interviews when requested by lead agents or prosecutors, arranging for transcription services for recorded interviews, and keeping track of interview logs and records.”

Patel repeated stated “under oath and under the penalty of perjury” that he would not fire any FBI agents because of their case assignments, in both his written Senate Questionnaire and during his confirmation hearing,” the complaint added.

As an additional bit of cruelty, the complaint said that John Doe 1 was fired on October 31, Halloween, and had to “abandon his two young children, already in costume, who were eagerly awaiting” going trick-or-treating, because he got a phone call from a superior ordering him to immediately report to the main Washington Field Office in person.

John Doe 2 was fired a few days later, on Election Day. Both agents asked for a reason they were being terminated, what law or policy they had allegedly violated, and what options they had, only to get no answers in response.

John Doe 1 expressed concerns because he “was the primary or sole agent on multiple fraud investigations,” but his termination was so rushed that “[I]n contravention of longstanding FBI practice, he was given no opportunity to transition these matters to other agents,” and he “believes that key case facts he came to know through his investigative work are now simply lost to the FBI, and he fears that certain cases may simply die, or be dismissed.”

The complaint spelled out concerns both agents had over their terminations harming other FBI investigations:

At the time of his firing, John Doe 1 was the primary or sole agent on multiple fraud investigations. In contravention of longstanding FBI practice, he was given no opportunity to transition these matters to other agents. John Doe 1 believes that key case facts he came to know through his investigative work are now simply lost to the FBI, and he fears that certain cases may simply die, or be dismissed…

At the time of his firing, John Doe 2 was either the only case agent, or the most senior case agent, on several active local public corruption cases. He was also the lead WFO agent in charge of coordinating election crimes investigations. He was fired on Election Day. As in John Doe 1’s case, John Doe 2 was given no opportunity to transition his matters to other agents. He fears that because of this, crucial case details, developments, and strategy are now lost to the FBI and prosecutors.

“Since their firings, both Plaintiffs have struggled to obtain new employment,” the complaint states, as their termination letters barred them from other federal employment an Trump, Patel, Republican members of Congress, and other administration officials continue to “disparage” them.

Plaintiffs’ termination were violations of their First Amendment rights to free association and speech, the complaint argued, “because they were based on a perception that Plaintiffs were not political supporters of President Trump,” and “[p]olitical support for President Trump is not a legal or appropriate requirement for the effective performance of Plaintiffs’ respective roles within the FBI.”

Their Fifth Amendment rights to due process were also violated, according to the complaint, because they were fired “without prior notice or opportunity for a hearing,” which caused them “reputational harm” and “deprived them of the ability to challenge the accuracy of any evidence that allegedly served as the basis for their removal, if any, and to protect their freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities in the Executive Branch and/or federal law enforcement.”

The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration from the court that their terminations violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights, and order “requiring Defendants to immediately reinstate Plaintiffs and enjoin Defendants from taking any further adverse personnel action against each of them without providing appropriate procedural due process as required by the Fifth Amendment,” plus their costs and attorney fees.

Read the complaint here.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!