The FBI and Public Trust: Two Things Can Be True at Once
- Ken Klose
- Feb 10
- 9 min read
The vast majority of FBI agents serve with integrity, faithfully carrying out their duties to protect American families—including my own. For that, I am deeply grateful.
But two things can be true at once. An institution’s reputation isn’t built solely on the dedication of its rank and file. No matter how many outstanding individuals serve within its ranks, the FBI does not have a free pass to violate the trust of the American people.
Many of the concerns outlined below originate from decisions made outside the Bureau’s direct control, often within the Department of Justice. However, perception matters. And when public trust is eroded, the FBI cannot escape the political, budgetary, and personnel consequences of that breach of trust.
If you are an FBI Special Agent who has pursued justice with integrity—and now find yourself questioning the future of your career, you have my full sympathy and support. You did your job, upheld your oath, and remained true to your mission. But at the institutional level, the FBI failed you.
While I respect and admire those who performed their duties honorably, we cannot pretend the last nine years didn’t happen. The vast majority of agents are among the best and brightest, yet as an institution, the Bureau has failed in its responsibility to remain unbiased.
"We were just following the facts," may hold true in individual cases, but why was that deference to truth only allowed in one direction? Political manipulation by omission is still manipulation—and it’s still wrong.
The FBI & Loss of Public Trust
Whether by design or negligence, the FBI allowed itself to become a political tool—at the very least in appearance. Now, before accusations fly that I’m pushing conspiracy theories straight from cable news, let me be clear: it’s not about what you or I believe—it’s about what the American people believe because, ultimately, they are our employers. The numbers speak for themselves.
Between 2019 and 2021, Gallup polling recorded a significant decline in public trust in the FBI, with the percentage of Americans rating the Bureau’s performance as “good” or “excellent” falling from 57% to 44%—a 13-point drop that was even more stark along partisan lines.
Source:
More recently, as of January 2025, an AP-NORC poll revealed that only 18% of Americans had high confidence in the FBI, while nearly half—48%—expressed little or no confidence in the agency.
Some Agents may push back against these numbers, citing anecdotal evidence to the contrary. But drive an hour outside of D.C. or New York City, and the first question at any BBQ is going to be, “What the hell is going on with the Bureau?”
The Bureau’s Original Sin
We find ourselves in this position because of an Original Sin dating back to 2015.
On July 5, 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey held an unprecedented press conference regarding the Bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State. In a move that violated DOJ policy and fundamental principles of due process, Director Comey publicly detailed the Bureau’s findings, effectively acting as investigator, prosecutor, and judge. While ultimately declining to recommend charges, his decision to air investigative details in a politically charged case was an extraordinary and improper breach that undermined both the FBI’s role and Clinton’s rights. To be fair, it seems as though the DOJ placed him in that position.
Ever since, it seems the Bureau has overcorrected in an effort to appear unbiased, making missteps in the opposite direction. Now, you might be rolling your eyes, but let’s consider a thought experiment. Imagine it’s 2012, and you’re an agent walking into your supervisor’s office, suggesting an investigation into an active political campaign—complete with FISA warrants. That ringing in your ear is the residual effects of being exposed to the loud sound of getting laughed out of your supervisor’s office.
Here’s another thought experiment: establish a nonprofit organization, appear to be positioning yourself for future office, secure funding from Russian oligarchs who suddenly develop an interest in mosquito netting in Africa, lose the election, and watch those donations vanish. Do you think such a case would attract interest? Probably.
And to be clear, none of this excuses any misconduct by the current President. However, among all the legal cases, the classified documents case had the most merit. Should the former President have complied and turned over the requested documents? Absolutely. Let’s be honest—he likely held onto them just because the government wanted them. Petty? Absolutely.
The agents involved in the case were operating under the belief that they were doing what was right—just as the agents investigating former President Biden’s possession of classified documents. In a twist almost beyond parody, Special Counsel Robert Hur concluded his investigation into Biden’s handling of classified materials in February 2024. A key factor in the decision not to pursue charges was the determination that, due to his advanced age and memory limitations, Biden might be seen by a jury as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
As we evaluate the current President’s mistrust of the intelligence community, let’s not overlook the countless hours of virtual training that Agents were subjected to following the Crossfire Hurricane scandal. Beyond what’s detailed in the DOJ documents below, a widely recognized perception persists—one of a carefully orchestrated shell game.
It is widely reported that the Hillary Clinton campaign funded opposition research, which then mysteriously found its way to the intelligence community. That very information became the basis for an investigation, later briefed to President Obama and, subsequently, President-elect Trump. Details of that briefing were then leaked to the press, sparking widespread media coverage. The Bureau, in turn, cited those same media reports as justification to further expand its investigation—creating a self-sustaining cycle.
Sources:
Inspector General Report on Crossfire HurricaneFBI Attorney Admits to Altering Email in FISA ApplicationDOJ Examination of Crossfire Hurricane
Mueller Report References Steele Dossier & Comey’s Briefing with TrumpFBI Aware Russians Had Early Knowledge of Steele Dossier
January 6 vs the Summer of Love
And then there’s the elephant in the room—January 6th. Once again, two things can be true at once. On January 7, 2021, there should have been a line of National Guardsmen filing workers' compensation claims for tennis elbow. Had that been the case, much of this debate wouldn’t even be happening.
Do I support every pardon or commutation? No, of course not. If you assaulted or battered law enforcement officers, you deserve to be held accountable. But if you were a grandmother peacefully escorted through the Capitol by security, as evidenced by video footage, then surely the Republic can withstand a measure of leniency.
In a vacuum, perhaps I’d feel differently, but let’s not pretend the "summer of love" in 2020 didn’t happen—resulting in over $1 billion in property damage, with some estimates exceeding $2 billion.
Source:
Which brings us to the perceived two-tiered justice system. Did the FBI or Justice Department launch the largest investigation in their history as parts of the nation burned? Of course not. And I can already hear the rebuttal: “Well, where was the federal nexus?” Please—let’s be honest. When the Bureau wants a nexus, it finds one. Are we really supposed to believe that not a single federal courthouse, Army recruiting station, or post office was affected by the violence?
How many emotionally disturbed persons (EDPs) have been charged with terrorism? Not to say they weren’t guilty of crimes, but labeling them as terrorists is often a matter of investigative discretion—because the Bureau chooses to make that designation.
And then there’s CHAZ… The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), later rebranded as the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP), in Seattle, Washington, which was occupied by protesters from June 8 to July 1, 2020, during the George Floyd protests. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few relevant statutes: Rebellion or Insurrection (18 U.S.C. § 2383), Seditious Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384), and Advocating the Overthrow of Government (18 U.S.C. § 2385). Yet, to my knowledge, while individuals who committed specific crimes within CHAZ/CHOP faced charges, I am not aware of any of the organizers being federally charged.
And yes, you could argue that I’m oversimplifying or that I lack full insight into the behind-the-scenes details of these cases. But here’s a straightforward test—try leaving a bag of cocaine outside a SCIF tomorrow and see what happens. For context, a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) is a highly secure area designated for handling classified material.
Moving Forward
Do I agree with everything President Trump has done? No. Many of his actions were little more than a giant middle finger. And guess what? The American people didn’t care. In part because everything I’ve outlined above became glaringly obvious. And if you still don’t get it—that middle finger is exactly why he got elected. He is the embodiment of that sentiment.
Change must come to the Bureau—and to the federal government as a whole. We don’t need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we also can’t just plug our noses and pretend the water doesn’t reek. The Bureau cannot afford to become a political pawn again. Consider the debate over personal actions and whether the President has the authority to take them. If the Bureau closes ranks and resists reform purely on the grounds of employment policy, it may win the legal battle but lose the larger political war. And if that happens, it won’t be long before it finds itself sitting next to USAID, waiting to be scattered to the winds.
Beware of Disingenuous Support
Both individual agents and the Bureau as an institution should be wary of those suddenly voicing the loudest support. Chances are, their cars are covered in layers of bumper stickers, and if you peeled them back, you’d find Defund the Police, Stop the Steal, and finally, Protect Those Who Protect Us. Convenient. Many of these people haven’t supported law enforcement this much since Deep Throat—later believed to be a senior FBI employee who leaked critical information to journalists during the Watergate scandal. And let’s be honest—nowhere on their “In This House, We Believe” yard sign was there ever a mention of backing law enforcement.
To the agents who carried out their duties with integrity, you have my sympathies. Unfortunately, those most responsible will likely evade consequences—not because they were right, but because they’re simply better at navigating the game. They’ve mastered reading the political tea leaves, and for the past decade, it served them well. But when the tide shifts, those same instincts will tell them to save themselves by throwing you under the bus—delivering their best performance of Shaggy’s It Wasn’t Me. The most egregious offenders may lose their jobs, but their actions were so blatant that they’ll ultimately be rewarded—securing comfortable positions at think tanks or joining firms where the leadership aligns with their worldview.
Closing Thoughts
The American public has lost faith in the institution, and if you’re an Agent who upheld your oath, that should anger you as much as it angers them. Too many dedicated individuals have sacrificed in the Bureau and law enforcement for us to remain silent any longer.
Thank you for your service and for protecting my family. I hope and pray that you can continue to do so within an institution worthy of your dedication.
Who Am I to Have This Opinion?
You might be wondering, Who is this tool, who has such an opinion?
I spent seven years in the FBI, primarily in counterterrorism, following military service in the United States Army. I led an infantry platoon with the 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq and later commanded a company with the 101st Airborne Division in Afghanistan.
So why did I leave the Bureau? A dozen reasons—any one of them alone might not have been enough, but together… To be honest, the Biden administration’s handling of Afghanistan broke my heart. While I supported withdrawing as far back as 2012—largely because the Afghan government never deserved to win—that didn’t excuse the shameful way in which we left. Then came COVID, compounded by extended family health issues, safety concerns for my family in the New York area, and the looming prospect of mandatory COVID vaccinations for children in New Jersey.
And yes, I know—seven years in the FBI isn’t the standard twenty. But after 16 years of federal service, I’ve earned the right to an opinion. If you think I don’t feel a pang of regret every time I read about the Bureau’s hard work, you’d be mistaken. But leaving was the right decision for my family. After all, I volunteered to serve. They didn’t.
Since then, we’ve refocused on what truly matters—family. We relocated to Naples, Florida, where our children are thriving and much closer to loved ones. Along the way, I even started a swim school—of all things—and more recently founded Archangel Readiness Consulting, an investigative and security consulting firm named in honor of Archangel Troop, 1-32 CAV, 1st Brigade (Bastogne), 101st Airborne Division. Meanwhile, my wife has built an incredible dental practice, Naples Dental Boutique. While I appreciate RFK Jr.’s health initiatives, he’s wrong about candy—eat as much as you’d like.
We’re also committed to giving back. Our latest initiative is a partnership with the Wounded Veterans Relief Fund, a nonprofit dedicated to supporting Florida veterans with critical dental care.
In short—we are blessed.
Comments