Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel look on as President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House, Monday, Aug. 11, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
Special agents who were part of the "Arctic Frost" investigation into President Donald Trump that led to his Jan. 6 indictment sued Director Kash Patel and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi claiming that their firings were unconstitutional and "improper acts of political retribution."
The DOJ generally and the FBI specifically have faced several lawsuits since Trump's inauguration and sweeping purge of agents for anything from their involvement in investigating him to the agents' "tactical decision to kneel" during a George Floyd protest. This time, two special agents, identified only as John Doe 1 and 2, had nearly 30 years of experience between them and worked serious cases. But "based solely" on the fact that they were assigned to Arctic Frost from November 2022 to June 2023, overlapping with special counsel Jack Smith's appointment and contributing to the eventual Trump indictment, they were "summarily dismissed," the suit alleged.
"Defendant Patel, Defendant Pamela J. Bondi, President 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," the plaintiffs said, noting the results of Arctic Frost "criminally implicated" the then-former president and "led to his indictment by a federal grand jury[.]"
The alleged facts surrounding the "pretextual" firings are similar, as both Does were told they "exercised poor judgment and a lack of impartiality in carrying out duties, leading to the political weaponization of the government," and they were sent packing not long after Republican lawmakers pressed Smith publicly on Arctic Frost.
"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," documents said.
Doe 1 alleged that he was about to take his two kids — "already in costume" — trick-or-treating when he got called to a meeting an hour's drive away that could not be ignored.
"This is it? Nothing can be done?" the plaintiff asked.
"It is what it is," Washington Field Office Special Agent in Charge Paul Reid Davis answered, according the suit.
Three days later, John Doe 2, aware of Doe 1's fate, said he received a call that he understood would be to initiate his firing — which U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro was allegedly "sorry" about and tried to prevent.
The agent had been working a "highly sensitive public corruption case" when he was told on Nov. 3 that "you are going to be terminated," but the firing didn't happen until the next day, the lawsuit said. That was because someone "had called on [his] behalf," and that intercessor was Pirro, the filing claimed. The reprieve did not last and the agent was likewise "summarily dismissed."
"[Assistant Director in Charge Darren] Cox confirmed to John Doe 2 that, the prior day, there had been an intercession on his behalf by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, which was why John Doe 2 was initially spared. Cox said Pirro had called him a second time, that day, and had asked him to relay the message that she was sorry for this process and appreciated all the work John Doe 2 had done," the complaint went on.
Both plaintiffs recounted difficulties finding new employment, with one unidentified regulatory organization CEO declining to extend an offer to John Doe 1, described as the "sole breadwinner for his household" and two "young children," based on the "optics" of his ouster. In addition, they understand the firings to be a "bar" on employment in any executive branch job.
In addition to Fifth Amendment due process claims, the plaintiffs alleged the firings violated the First Amendment as "improper acts of political retribution," as evidenced by Patel's own "defamatory speech" online.
"In the course of unlawfully terminating Plaintiffs' respective employment without due process of law, Defendants—primarily through Patel—publicly connected the termination actions to allegations that the terminated Arctic Frost agents had been 'weaponizing' the FBI. This false and defamatory public smear impugned the professional reputation of all publicly identified fired Arctic Frost agents, including John Doe 1, suggesting they were something other than faithful and apolitical law enforcement personnel," the suit concluded. "This public reputational smear has caused not only the loss of John Doe 1's government employment but further harmed his present and future employment prospects. In the months following Plaintiffs' unlawful terminations, Patel has continued to engage in such defamatory speech, publicly describing the fired Arctic Frost agents as 'corrupt' and compounding the reputational harm suffered by John Doe 1."
Read the full filing here.
Follow Law&Crime:
Comments