FBI Director Kash Patel, listens during a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence hearing to examine worldwide threats, Thursday, March 19, 2026, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (AP Photo/Tom Brenner).
A former FBI agent has filed a lawsuit alleging he was fired by FBI Director Kash Patel for "speaking publicly" as a citizen about an "important, publicly known, and widely debated federal investigation."
In a 16-page federal complaint filed in Florida on Thursday, Stephen Friend says he previously ran into trouble with bureau authorities in 2022 as a result of "retaliation for protected whistleblower activity."
Friend's career appeared back on track when he was reinstated in September 2025 as a special agent assigned to the Jacksonville Field Office, according to the lawsuit. But that second stint did not last long.
Between his reinstatement and the completion of various formalities, Friend was dismissed in mid-December 2025, in a letter dated Dec. 12, 2025.
The lawsuit notes that during the lengthy administrative holdover period, the since-fired agent "remained under escort inside FBI facilities and performed no actual work or duties."
The plaintiff says the termination letter signed by Patel cited Friend's comments on podcasts about the FBI's investigation into two pipe bombs discovered amid the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
"Friend's commentary addressed the investigation, the agency's handling of evidence, and the accountability of federal law enforcement," the complaint reads. "Friend spoke publicly through podcast appearances, commentary, and dissemination of media materials. He participated in that public discussion in his personal capacity [and] outside his assigned investigative duties."
In short, Friend insists his commentary was delivered while he was off-duty, caused no disruption among the FBI ranks or an ongoing investigation, and did not purport to be attributed to the bureau.
Notably, those podcast appearances occurred between October and December 2025 — part of the long holdover period between the time Friend was formally reinstated and allowed into the office.
In the dismissal letter, Patel broadly accused Friend of "unprofessional conduct and poor judgment."
The offenses included Friend's comments on the podcasts, which the FBI claimed concerned ongoing investigations. Friend says this is in reference to his comments about the early December 2025 arrest of the suspect in the pipe bomb investigation.
During one discussion of the suspect, Friend "conditionally" brought up the arrest, "referring to the possibility that the FBI had engaged in a 'put up job' concerning that subject," the lawsuit says.
And, whatever the nature of that commentary, Friend says he was speaking personally and protected by the First Amendment.
"Patel falsely characterized Friend's speech as 'unprofessional conduct' as a pretextual basis for his termination," the plaintiff's attorney Anthony Sabatini said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. "Friend, a highly awarded special agent, violated no existing FBI policy."
The complaint elaborates on the scope-of-work argument:
Friend spoke as a private citizen, outside his assigned investigative duties, when he publicly discussed and criticized the FBI's handling of the pipe-bomb investigation. His commentary was not an assigned investigative report, an internal communication produced as part of his work, or an authorized statement on behalf of the FBI. He did not hold himself out as speaking for the agency, and the public setting and context distinguished his personal commentary from official FBI communications.The content, form, and context of Friend's speech establish its public significance. He addressed an important, publicly known federal investigation through podcasts and other public commentary, raising concerns about the handling of evidence and the integrity and accountability of federal law enforcement. Those subjects concerned the public's interest in the government's conduct rather than merely Friend's private employment interests.
"Protected criticism does not lose constitutional protection solely because agency leadership finds it unwelcome or its tone forceful," the complaint continues, making a constitutional argument. "The applicable inquiry requires consideration of the actual speech and legitimate governmental interests."
To hear the plaintiff tell it, Friend's podcast speechifying "was a substantial or motivating factor" in his removal and argues that his firing "would not have occurred absent the protected speech."
The lone count in the lawsuit is a First Amendment retaliation claim. Friend is seeking back pay, "unpaid compensation," and attorneys fees, along with other relief.
"Plaintiff seeks an order setting aside the unconstitutional removal, restoring his employment subject to lawful eligibility requirements, and correcting the resulting personnel records," the filing goes on. "Compensation alone would not restore his employment or correct those records."