What happens after Trump selects FBI critic Kash Patel to rebuild the agency?

Patel, a staunch Trump supporter with intentions to shake up the FBI, is a stark contrast to the current director, Christopher Wray, who advocates a “keep calm and tackle hard” approach. By selecting Patel over more conventional candidates late Saturday, the incoming Republican president is once again testing his ability to persuade the Senate to bend to his way by confirming some of his more controversial selections.

That period of time is intended to ensure that the directors of the country’s most visible federal law enforcement organization can operate without political influence or pressure. Presidents have often, but not always, kept the director who was in place when they took office, as Democratic President Joe Biden has done with Wray. However, all FBI directors serve at the pleasure of the president; for example, Wray was chosen after Trump sacked James Comey, the FBI director he succeeded in his first term. Biden’s national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, stated on Sunday that the administration “adhered to the long-standing convention that FBI directors carry out their full terms because the FBI director is a unique player in the American government system.

Noting that Trump had appointed Wray to the position, Sullivan told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “Joe Biden did not fire him.” He trusted him to carry out his duties as FBI director and gave him the opportunity to complete his tenure. So that’s how we addressed things, and we want to make sure that the FBI stays an independent institution free of politics.”

Trump’s announcement means that Wray can either retire, as Trump appears to want, or wait to be fired when Trump takes office in January. In any case, the pick of a successor serves as a strong indication that Wray’s time is over. If Wray leaves before Patel is confirmed, the job of acting director would most likely be held in the interim by the FBI’s current deputy director.

In a statement released Saturday night, the FBI stated, “Every day, the men and women of the FBI continue to work to protect Americans from a growing array of threats.” “Director Wray’s focus remains on the men and women of the FBI, the people we work with and for.”

Republicans may have gained control of the Senate, but his confirmation is not guaranteed. There are no doubt lawmakers who support Trump’s call for a radical overhaul of the FBI, particularly in light of federal investigations that resulted in two separate indictments against the president-elect, and who agree with his assessment that federal law enforcement has been “weaponized” against conservatives.

But Patel is likely to face deep skepticism during his confirmation hearings over his stated plans to rid the government of “conspirators” against Trump, as well as his claims that he would shut down the FBI’s Pennsylvania Avenue headquarters in the nation’s capital and send the thousands of employees who work there to “chase down criminals” across the country. And, while Trump may have desired a loyalist willing to seek vengeance against his perceived adversaries, senators who believe the FBI and Justice Department should be free of political influence and not tasked with carrying out a president’s personal agenda are likely to be concerned.

Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, posted on social media late Saturday, foreshadowing the possibly bitter confirmation process ahead: “Kash Patel will be another test of the Senate’s advice and consent.” Patel must demonstrate to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he possesses the necessary qualifications and, despite previous assertions, would prioritize our nation’s public safety over a political agenda centred on retribution.” Trump has reportedly mentioned the possibility of using recess appointments to get his choices past the Senate.

If Patel is confirmed, will he be able to carry on his promises? Patel has made a number of bold assertions about his intentions for the federal government, but the majority of those suggestions would require support and buy-in from other authorities, and they would almost definitely face strong opposition. His suggestion that he would restrict the FBI’s presence and authority contrasts with the approach generally pursued by bureau officials, who always insist they want more resources, not less. He has spoken of seeking to rid the government of “conspirators” against Trump, as well as going “after the people in the media who lied about American citizens who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,” either criminally or civilly.

According to the FBI’s own rules, criminal investigations cannot be based on arbitrary or baseless supposition, but must have a legitimate objective to uncover or disrupt criminal behaviour. While the FBI conducts investigations, the Justice Department is responsible for pressing federal charges or launching lawsuits on behalf of the federal government. Trump announced last week that he intends to nominate Pam Bondi, the former Florida attorney general, to serve as attorney general.

Patel’s planned assault on government officials’ leaks to the media suggests that he wants the Justice Department to reverse its present policy, which prohibits the secret collection of reporters’ phone records during leak investigations. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued this guideline in response to an outcry over the discovery that federal prosecutors had received subpoenas for journalists’ phone data.

Patel has expressed interest in separating the FBI’s intelligence-gathering efforts, which are now a major element of the bureau’s mandate, from the rest of its operations. It’s unclear whether he means to follow through on that promise, or how it will be received at a time when the United States is confronting what officials call a heightened threat of terrorism.

He also says he intends to close the FBI’s iconic Pennsylvania Avenue headquarters and relocate its staff across the country. It’s unclear whether that’s a hyperbolic assertion expressing scorn for the “deep state” or something he’d actually try to enact, but how that would play out in practice remains a large question mark.