Performative Justice: Ambition in the Spotlight
The following is an article drafted by Philip Fields, a former FBI analyst for 13 years. We are publishing this article with his permission.
“Delete your social media accounts.”
I spent more than a decade inside of one of the FBI’s most guarded counterterrorism operations, and this was the first piece of advice we gave newcomers to the Bureau. Living a life of secrecy isn’t easy, especially when senior intelligence officials and special operations team members are constantly leaving the community and publishing tell-all memoirs about what it was like to live inside a terror cell or raid the Bin Laden compound.
For most of us, we will never be able to speak openly with the public about what we did because secrets don’t stop needing protection after the FBI makes an arrest. This reasoning was recently put on display when FBI Director Kash Patel took to the news and social media claiming credit for federal law enforcement’s disruption of a terrorist plot originally targeting the June 14 UFC Freedom 250 event — while arrests were still ongoing.
According to court records and media reports, the plot to attack the UFC event at the White House consisted of more than 20 different subjects trying to overthrow the United States government. At the time of Patel’s statements on June 16, only 10 of the individuals had been identified and five were in custody. As it turned out, between June 12 and 13, the focus of the plot shifted away from the UFC event to Fourth of July gatherings and a July 3 World Cup game in Kansas City, Missouri.
As the FBI and Secret Service continued to investigate, multiple subjects made references to learning details of the investigation through media reports, DOJ press releases, and court documents. Then, on June 18, one subject notified an associate of another change of plans because of news reports of FBI investigative activity. In an act that would be comedic if not so reckless, on June 13, an FBI agent called one of the subjects on the phone to inquire as to whether they intended to drive to Washington the following day and participate in the attack on the UFC fight. The subject reportedly hung up on the agent and deleted their Signal account along with any potential evidence it may have revealed under more thoughtful investigative scrutiny.
Throughout these events, several facts have become abundantly clear. The FBI is losing its ability to maintain the kind of operational security necessary to protect the integrity of its investigations. This shift is likely the result of the widespread loss of leadership and expertise over the past 18 months, as well as a heightened demand from senior leadership to produce newsworthy results rather than investigative success. Such acts of repeated indiscretion will only continue to damage the FBI over time.
Those of us who’ve served at the FBI have watched with horror as the FBI Director simultaneously fosters a culture of imprudence and threatens crackdowns on employees’ outside communications. Yet, there is one cluster of investigative activity the FBI and DOJ have yet to make official comment on: the Director’s Advisory Team — a handpicked group of agents willing to pursue political targets (also known as the “payback squad”) — which is under investigation by the House Judiciary Committee for accepting more than $1 million in awards from Patel’s office.
This lack of transparency surrounding the highly publicized investigative activity of the Director’s Advisory Team weighed against the repeated rush to take credit for more politically favorable disruptions lays bare what are likely the real reasons for Patel’s June 16 comments on the UFC plot. He almost certainly did it because he hoped to win favor in the eyes of the President for “saving” his birthday party after a year of negative press.
Ultimately, the true measure of an FBI career lies not in a headline, but in the silence that follows a successful disruption. For decades, the rank-and-file have quietly sacrificed the laurels of public recognition and self-promotion to ensure justice is served, rather than performed. This silence isn’t meant to impede transparency, but to safeguard the sources, methods, and ongoing investigations that protect the nation. The allure of the spotlight may be strong in an age of hypervisibility, but if the Bureau is to survive this unprecedented institutional strain, it will be because quiet professionals chose to let their silence speak for their integrity.
If the Director truly wishes to showcase the Bureau’s operations on social media, he should start with the inner workings of his own heavily rewarded Director’s Advisory Team, as requested by the House Judiciary Committee.
