On a recent Saturday night, Donald Trump declared his intention to appoint Kash Patel as the director of the FBI, prompting significant backlash from mainstream media and political establishments. Critics, including various legal and national security experts, expressed concerns that Trump aims to politicize the FBI and use it against his political adversaries. This reaction reflects a worry that resonates with right-leaning audiences, who have increasingly felt targeted by the FBI’s actions in recent years. However, the fears voiced by the political elite assume a historical narrative that sees the FBI as primarily a law enforcement agency that has only recently succumbed to politicization.
In reality, the FBI was established with the intention of being wielded as a tool against political movements and dissidents that threatened the status quo. The origins of the FBI date back to the late 19th century, an era characterized by leftist anarchists who carried out assassinations on European leaders, raising alarm among U.S. officials. After the assassination of President William McKinley by an anarchist in 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt tasked Attorney General Charles Bonaparte—who fancied the concept of a federal investigative body—with creating the FBI. Despite facing opposition from Congress, which viewed the proposed Bureau as an equivalent to a secret police force, Bonaparte established the FBI in secret, revealing it to Congress only months later.
Upon its creation, the FBI quickly became a vehicle for the government to suppress dissent, initially targeting anarchists and later expanding to anti-war activists during World War I. This domestic intelligence agency quickly set a precedent for intrusive surveillance and reconnaissance on perceived threats to the political establishment—actions that included covert infiltration, wiretapping, and mail interception. Over time, the FBI evolved from serving the interests of the current president to prioritizing its own agenda and that of the entrenched political elite.
Throughout the mid-20th century, the Bureau conducted covert operations that frequently aimed to destabilize domestic political groups, employing methods that included inciting violence among different factions and even attempting to blackmail civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. Despite a modern-day disavowal of such acts, the FBI continues to engage in controversial tactics that seem to align with the protection of the political class. A notorious method involves using undercover agents to manipulate vulnerable individuals into participating in fake terrorist plots, only to later intervene and present themselves as heroes thwarting imminent threats.
This trend has persisted, with the FBI seemingly creating scenarios that validate the established political narratives, particularly after the September 11 attacks where they targeted young Muslim men in sting operations to justify the overarching surveillance structures implemented by the Patriot Act. More recently, the Bureau has reportedly engaged in similar practices with right-wing groups, reinforcing narratives about a radicalized segment of the American population, particularly surrounding Donald Trump’s rise. Consequently, while right-wing critics express valid concerns over a politicized FBI potentially retaliating against them, they often overlook the historical reality that the Bureau has been employed by those in power to stifle opposition since its formation.
The reaction to Trump’s proposed appointment of Kash Patel encapsulates a broader tension between the political elite and the populist sentiments fueled by years of perceived bias and misconduct from institutions like the FBI. Despite the bipartisan disdain for potential FBI manipulation under Trump, the history of the Bureau as a suppressor of dissent reveals that its politicization is not a new phenomenon, but rather a foundational aspect of its operational legacy. Therefore, while current apprehensions about the FBI’s future direction are pertinent, they should be grounded in a recognition of the Bureau’s historical context as an institution entwined with the political machinations of those in power.