FBI Director Kash Patel testifies before Senate Judiciary Committee

[0:00] invisible operations, but we build a systematic campaign to collect intelligence and drive out [0:06] the actual root causes of the crime of gang warfare, which was the problem plaguing Memphis [0:12] and the problem plaguing localized cities across America. We were able to apprehend not just the [0:18] gangbangers and their firearms. We were able, like we did in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia [0:23] in the Weyman Street Gang, we literally uprooted an entire city block and eliminated that entire [0:29] street gang. We use that same concept in Memphis and we're going to continue to do that to move [0:33] guns at rapid rates, to find children that were missing for years, and also most importantly to [0:38] reduce the homicide rate and return Memphis to the great city that it was. And across the country, [0:44] how many children have you found? 11,100 in the last 18 months. Say that again for me. 11,100, [0:52] it's a 21% increase. That's right. And I think under the Biden administration, we had north of 300,000 [0:59] children that could not be found. I want to talk a little bit more about that. The chairman talked [1:07] about the report act that was signed into law earlier. And we also have the Safe Cloud Storage [1:18] Act that is following with that. And this deals with the work we have with NCMEC that we are doing. [1:26] And the chairman talked about this. And I think it is so important that we be able to safely store [1:33] and transfer and process this CSAM so that we're able to investigate these heinous crimes. [1:41] So a couple of things here. I want you to talk for a moment about the new processes your team has put in [1:49] place and touch on how you're using AI to drill down and help find these predators, perverts, groomers, and get them locked up. [2:03] So it's a it's an all encompassing effort. I've always said that the cyberspace is the space the adversary uses the most [2:10] to commit its most violent crimes against America. And the adversary has no rules and no laws. In order for us to catch up to the adversary, [2:18] the criminals, the terrorists, the gangbangers, we have to work with our private sector partners. [2:23] We for the first time at the FBI have professionally partnered and officially partnered with more private [2:29] sector individual companies and social media and AI. A 600% increase in AI alone invested into the bureau [2:36] on the admin side of the house, on the operational side of the house, to decrease the workload for our [2:41] employees to sit there and work out the minutiae of paperwork, rather than being in the field, [2:47] which is what we are doing, driving operations in the field through intelligence. And in order to do [2:51] and deliver that intelligence, we can't have it sitting in a data rack. We have to have it triaged. [2:56] So we brought in AI. We, the US government cannot build that AI infrastructure. Our partners have [3:01] already built it. So under the law, we are making sure civil liberties are protected [3:05] and utilizing the fact that this great information has been collected and sitting on the shelf. And what we did [3:10] was we put it in the field. We put Intel analysts in the field and we said to our SACs or 56 SACs across the country, [3:16] you're in charge. You know your AOR is better than anyone else, which is why you've seen the largest [3:21] reduction in violent crime in American history. And utilization of AI is part of the modernization [3:28] process for your FBI systems, correct? Yes, to the tune of a 605% increase since I hit the seat. [3:35] That is wonderful. Jack Smith is going to come before us later this month. And we've heard so much [3:43] about weaponization of the FBI. And of course, Americans saw this with Arctic frost and crossfire [3:54] hurricane. And they saw it with conservatives that were targeted throughout the country, whether it had to [4:02] do with schools and children or our pro-life issues. So walk me through what you have done, what steps [4:11] you have taken to remove weaponization from the Bureau. So having been targeted myself by a weaponization [4:20] of law enforcement, we went after it internally because the FBI needs to be accountable to the American [4:25] citizens and not just execute and enforce the law. So we looked at every individual that was involved [4:31] with things like the Catholic memo or the intentional malfeasance surrounding intelligence collection [4:39] and intelligence production and made sure that those individuals no longer work at the FBI. It's that [4:45] simple. If you participated in that sort of conduct, we removed you and we continue to do that. And in [4:50] terms of criminal investigations that sprout from that, you know, I can only comment on what's been made [4:55] public. But there are a number of ongoing investigations regarding this illegal conduct. [5:00] Um, birthright tourism. We know that there are about 33,000 births that we know of that are taking place, [5:11] uh, utilizing birthright tourism. And, um, I'm, I've got legislation. I'm working to try to give President [5:20] Trump more tools to fight this with the banned birthright tourism, uh, act. It would amend immigration and [5:29] nationality act and, uh, make it clear that any alien engaging in birthright tourism is inadmissible to the [5:40] country. And if they're here, they are deportable. And I know that you have worked with DOJ on some [5:51] issues around this. I think it is a heinous practice. It's got to come to an end. And I would [5:58] like for you to touch on what you're doing to make certain that we end birthright tourism. [6:03] We are following the federal statutes that we have on the books right now. And we're working with our [6:09] partners in Congress to draft new legislation, to give us new authorities, to make sure that we can [6:14] combat the threat because we want the United States of America to be open for legal immigration and not [6:20] for illegal immigration. And we're going to continue to work to that end and work with our partners in [6:24] Congress. We've asked them for more resources and legislation and we need some bolstering in that [6:29] capacity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, [6:35] Director Patel, uh, you and I were together at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, [6:41] uh, to honor the lives and sacrifices of over 360 officers who died in the line of duty, including [6:54] three from my state. Our first responders put their lives on the line every day to keep their [7:01] communities safe. Earlier this month, we saw the courage of the brave men and women of law enforcement [7:06] firsthand. Police were on the scene within two minutes of receiving a 911 call about shots fired [7:13] in an apartment building and help get people to hospitals and others to safety, uh, all while the [7:19] officers being shot at themselves. Two Minnesotans were tragically killed, but it would have been a lot [7:25] more. I know the FBI was also on the scene and I want to thank the Minnesota FBI for their assistance, [7:32] as well as the assistance and cooperation that they gave us, um, both statewide and federally [7:39] with the horrific mass shooting at Annunciation Church of 20-some people, as well as the murder of [7:45] Melissa and Mark Hortman. As you know, this was all in the last year. And I also hope that we will see [7:52] that kind of cooperation in the ongoing investigations of the killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good. [7:59] I want to acknowledge the work of the FBI agents and federal prosecutors in making sure that people [8:05] who steal taxpayer money in Minnesota are held accountable. I strongly support, we've talked about [8:12] this, the prosecution of fraud cases by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota. As you know, I've been [8:17] involved with this office for years and I fought to ensure that the office had the resources to [8:23] investigate the fraud and prosecute criminals to the fullest extent of the law. I discussed the [8:29] importance of these investigations and prosecutions with Attorney General Bondi and Blanche, as well as [8:36] Assistant Attorney General for the National Fraud Division McDonald, both in private as well as at [8:43] public hearings. And I hope I have your commitment to continue providing resources for these investigations. [8:52] Could you talk about your commitment to continue in providing resources for the fraud investigations [9:00] and give us some update? We know in Minnesota that we've had [9:04] over 98 people and 60 convictions indicted, convicted, with more to come. Could you talk about the status, [9:15] not just in Minnesota, but across the country? Yes, Senator, and thanks for bearing through the [9:19] rain in two years running at the law enforcement memorial. So there's two types of fraud that I want [9:27] to talk about real quick. In Minnesota specifically, it's related to the Feeding Our Futures program, which [9:33] racked up a fraud about a half a billion dollars in value, which is money that was sent from basically [9:38] the federal government through the state governments through entities that were dispersed illegally [9:43] in Minnesota. And as you said, we've indicted and charged about a hundred people, and I think [9:47] majority of them have been convicted. The rest of that investigation is ongoing, and we're going to [9:51] continue to root out that fraud in Minnesota. And that fraud is led by, you know, the president's [9:57] anti-fraud task force. And we were just in Kansas City yesterday with the vice president doing another version [10:02] of that, highlighting the fact that the FBI had arrested six of the most wanted fraudsters in [10:07] the world in the last three months, totaling over two billion in fraud. They were on four separate [10:11] continents. We found them all, and we returned them here to justice. And we are now in the process [10:16] of returning that money. The second part of that, real quick, Senator, is the scam center fraud. [10:20] So the FBI has launched, and I hosted, the first ever scam center symposium in Southeast Asia in the [10:27] cross-border regions of Thailand, Burma, and Cambodia, which no one really ever thinks about, [10:31] is the epicenter of the fraud that tens of thousands of Americans are facing. And in the last 18 months, [10:37] the FBI has read four joint operations overseas in the Middle East and in Southeast Asia, where we've [10:42] see 17 billion dollars in fraud, crypto and cash. And we've also, through, that's our operation blackout. [10:50] That is the premier law enforcement program leading the annihilation of scam centers. We go in there, [10:55] we free the traffic workers, we collect evidence, and then we work with our partners to literally [10:59] bulldoze those scam centers so they can never be up again. And we suffocate their communications [11:04] capability with the private sector by eliminating their access to the internet. And the last thing is, [11:08] through Operation Level Up, we're on the proactive side of fraud. So we have reached out to our [11:13] communities and our partners and said, if you see something, if you are a target, let us know early. [11:18] We've prevented one billion dollars in fraud from Americans before they were victimized by these scam [11:23] centers. We're going to continue that work. Thanks. Just quick. I've long supported efforts [11:28] led by Senator Grassley to strengthen the False Claims Act, support the Justice Department's efforts to [11:34] address whistleblower allegations. A quick answer, what role should whistleblowers, including key TAM [11:41] cases, play in rooting up fraud in government programs? They're, they're essential. Okay, thank you. [11:47] Um, turning to the matter I referenced before, um, the killings of Renee Good and Alex Preddy, [11:55] you know that Renee Good's final words to the officers were, I'm not mad at you. And Alex Preddy, [12:00] a VA intensive care nurse who did one of the most selfless jobs that anyone could think of. [12:06] Uh, his last words were to a woman who had, um, been shoved to the ground were, [12:11] are you okay? Alex Preddy's parents, uh, have spoken out about wanting to get, um, meaningful [12:18] information about the status of the investigation. And I know the FBI takes pride in how it treats [12:25] victims. Will you ensure that the Bureau provides meaningful information to the families in these cases? [12:32] Yes. Okay. And we have concerns about the Bureau's actions after, um, of course, both killings. Um, [12:41] but after Renee Good was killed, according to reports, the FBI, FBI failed to process the car for [12:47] evidence. Um, do you agree that it is important for the Bureau to conduct timely, thorough investigations [12:55] of officer involved shootings when we are the lead agency? Yes. All right. And so the, with that answer, [13:04] it makes me sort of step back a little. So is the lead agency then in your mind is going to be the state [13:11] and the locals for the Renee Good and Alex Preddy shootings. Because again, we're going to have to [13:17] have cooperation as we have in all of the instances I mentioned about Annunciation, Melissa and Mark [13:23] Hortman's killing and others. We will fully support all those investigations. It doesn't matter if it's a [13:28] state investigation, federal investigation, bureau investigation, DHS investigation. We're fully [13:31] committed to support all of them. Okay. Uh, I have, uh, great concerns regarding the president's use of [13:38] the Justice Department. Um, when it comes to our democracy, do you believe it is proper for the [13:44] president to use the FBI to influence any election or give an advantage to one party or another over [13:51] another? I don't believe any president should be doing that. And this president has not done that [13:56] for the FBI. Okay. And since the civil war, well, the Justice Department manual, and I will say, [14:01] um, um, um, makes it very clear, um, that that is the case. But we are concerned because of some of [14:09] the statements the president has made and some of the actions that have been taken across the country. [14:15] Since the civil war, federal law has made clear that the president does not have the authority to [14:20] deploy armed federal officials to election sites. Are you aware of the Justice Department's longstanding [14:27] guidance that states that FBI agents cannot conduct investigations inside polling places on election [14:33] day and that federal prosecutors have no authority to send FBI special agents or deploy U.S. Marshals [14:40] to polling places? I'm aware. And so will you commit to following clear federal law and DOJ policy and not [14:47] deploy federal agents to polling places? We will always follow the law and the guidelines. Okay. Um, during your [14:54] time as FBI director, the Bureau has investigated members of the media for activities related to news [15:01] gatherings, such as reporting on government whistleblowers. According to reports in July, [15:07] you personally oversaw an investigation in which subpoenas were issued to New York Times journalists [15:13] who reported about security deficiencies in the Qatari donated Air Force One and armed officers were even [15:19] sent to reporters homes. These subpoenas were withdrawn because a federal judge found the Justice [15:26] Department failed to follow its own rules about subpoenaing journalists. Is that correct? I think [15:32] that's an accurate summary. But just real quick, we are not targeting the journalists. We are looking to [15:37] find out who leaks sensitive and classified information as a government employee. Okay. And I will note that [15:43] the judge said, um, um, um, in his, in his ruling, he said, subpoenas to reporters are not the first thing [15:51] you do. They are the last thing you do. And so do you believe that subpoenaing reporters just 24 hours [15:58] after the story was published? Is that the last resort? Well, there was a lot of work that went into that, [16:04] Kate, and it's still ongoing. And so I'm not going to comment on it. But we worked through all the hurdles [16:10] that the guidelines require. Okay. Um, we'll follow up on that last, uh, in July, more than 30 [16:16] municipal water systems in Minnesota were targeted in a coordinated cyber attack. It has been publicly [16:22] reported that this was likely the work of Iranian hackers as opposed to Minnesotans, which the president [16:29] at one point, um, stated. This isn't the first time that a cyber attack has targeted municipal systems [16:36] in Minnesota. Uh, last summer, we had a cyber attack on the city of St. Paul. Can you update us [16:42] on the FBI's response to the recent cyber attack on at least a dozen states water systems, including [16:48] Minnesota, South Dakota, Michigan, and Arkansas? Yeah, this is one of the most critical things that [16:54] the FBI is doing in terms of our cyber operations. So when the adversary attacks are critical infrastructure, [17:01] the FBI has asked and engaged with our partners to be in early and often, just like we did with the [17:06] five major banks last year. We got in on Friday. We exfiltrated all the bad actors by Sunday. On the [17:11] water system attack that you're talking about, the problem is the deficiency in the private sector. [17:18] Remember, 85% of the critical infrastructure in this country is owned by the private sector. [17:23] That they were using edge routers and PLC devices that were 25 years old. And we've asked those [17:28] companies to harden those devices because it's so easy for just one person on one keyboard in a far [17:34] way land. It doesn't even have to be a united effort to come in and break through to that system. [17:38] So we're working with that specific company on the Minnesota and the other states that you identified. [17:42] But we're also working through our Operation Riptide, our cyber offensive operations. We've led 600 [17:48] private sector engagements with critical infrastructure companies across the country [17:53] to allow us to come in early and often with our cyber action teams because we can eliminate the threat [17:58] and we can also tie back the intelligence to broader operators and take down the global threat. [18:02] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you, Director Patel, for the outset for your [18:11] redirection and change of focus of the Bureau from the overt and historical weaponization we saw [18:20] under the prior administration to a real focus on law and order and putting the bad guys in jail. And [18:25] a couple of questions I want to ask you about that relate to that specifically yesterday. You and I were [18:30] both in my home state of Missouri and Kansas City announcing a new effort on the efforts to crack [18:37] down on fraud, a lot of the COVID era programs. The money was rushed out the door with deadlines to [18:43] spend it. And what could go wrong? There's a lot of fraudsters that took advantage of the American [18:51] people. And as we said yesterday, these are not victimless crimes. I mean, you have people who are [18:55] working their tail off every day who've had their paychecks robbed. So these fraudsters could take money from [19:01] these programs. And then people who need it most, people with disabilities, the elderly looking for [19:05] a hospice center. I mean, they're being taken advantage of here and making resources more scarce [19:10] for their actual needs, what the programs were intended for. So I appreciate your efforts on that. [19:16] I want to ask you, and by the way, before I forget, because I may run out of time, I want to thank you [19:21] again for your focus. When you and I first talked about your confirmation, we talked about St. Louis, [19:25] and you've kept your word. There's a lot of the largest infusion of permanent FBI agents per capita [19:32] in the country. The results speak for themselves. I know those efforts continue. So I want to thank [19:36] you for your commitment and honor your word on that. In June, I think this is fascinating. [19:42] You launched the FBI's first ever most wanted fraudsters list. I want to talk about that for just a [19:48] little bit. Because I think that for whatever reason, this just wasn't a big focus before. And now that it [19:55] is, and I think the results are pretty compelling. I want to start with Khalid Satari. Satari is a [20:05] foreign national born in Gaza. He is charged in a scheme that allegedly billed Medicare more than [20:11] $574 million for medically unnecessary cancer genetic testing. Prosecutors say his operation used [20:19] telemarketers, patient recruiters, and illegal kickbacks to generate tests that reimburse between [20:23] 10,000 and 20,000 each. He was released on bond. He fled the country. When authorities finally caught [20:30] him overseas, he was carrying a fake Mexican passport under a fake name. Where is Khalid now? [20:37] He's in custody. Okay, that's great. Syed Abdul Lahai [20:42] Erig, born in Somalia. He operated a grocery and deli in Minnesota. He allegedly took more than $4.2 [20:49] million from a federal program meant to feed children. His grocery store claimed to have served more [20:55] than $1.4 million meals in about a year. The FBI says he allegedly used much of that money to fund his [21:01] family's lavish lifestyle and transferred money to foreign accounts. He has been wanted since 2024. [21:08] You put him on the most wanted fraudster list. He surrendered to law enforcement six days later. [21:13] Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Where is he now? In prison. Okay, that's great. Elaine Esko. The FBI lists her [21:21] nationality as Jamaican. She and her alleged co-conspirators submitted more than 90 fraudulent [21:27] applications for COVID relief programs and allegedly obtained more than $32 million. Fake tax documents, [21:35] fabricated bank accounts. In some cases, they allegedly demanded as much as half of the taxpayer money as [21:42] their cut. She failed to appear in federal court and fled to Jamaica. Where is she now? In prison. [21:46] Manjit Sigbeti, born in India, a naturalized U.S. citizen. He operated a grocery store that participated [21:57] in SNAP, a very important program. The allegation is pretty simple. Instead of selling people food, [22:03] he swiped their benefit cards, handed them cash, and then half the taxpayer money for himself. He gets [22:10] indicted. The judge ordered him to surrender his passport and remain in Washington state. Instead, [22:14] he drives across the border into Canada and makes his way to India. The FBI put him on the most [22:19] wanted fraudster list. Where is he now? In custody. And then there's Herb Kimball, [22:24] born in Chicago, a city known for organized crime, historically, of course, and the Cubs. [22:30] I don't know which one is worse, Senator Durbin. But he pled guilty to his role in healthcare fraud, [22:38] conspiracy involving $1.2 billion in Medicare charges. He then failed to show up for sentencing [22:45] and fled to the Philippines. You put him on the most wanted fraudster list when it launched on June 4th. [22:50] He was captured for four days later. Is that correct? Yes. And he's in prison. [22:54] He's in the United States. Yep. So I just I just want to take stock of that. This isn't [23:02] like rocket science. It takes resources and it takes leadership, right? I mean, you have to [23:07] you have to have a goal here. And if the goal is to go after people who have ripped off the American [23:12] people, you can accomplish that. Can you just kind of walk me through the resources you have committed to [23:19] this and what's next? So when we set out to target the worst of the worst, the FBI has always [23:24] historically had its FBI's most wanted top 10 list. And the reason we've all been able to capture all [23:30] 10 of the FBI's most wanted top 10 in just 18 months is the following. It's what you alluded to. [23:36] Our best partner is the American public. Our law enforcement teams are the best in the world. [23:41] But sometimes the American public has information that we don't have access to. [23:45] And that's success on the top 10. When I was having a discussion with the vice president, [23:51] can't we he said, can't we replicate that on the fraudsters that are fleecing American seniors and [23:56] our kids of money that they need? So we launched pursuant to the vice president's idea, the most [24:01] wanted fraudsters list with the same motive behind it. We need information on where these individuals [24:06] are hiding out. And we need information to piece together some of their cases. So since June, [24:10] this is no small task. We have captured and arrested and brought back to justice six of the [24:17] most wanted fraudsters, I think there's 12 on that list right now, totaling $2 billion in fraud across [24:22] Medicare, SNAP, COVID-19 relief funds, PPA and whatnot. They were on the run collectively for 5,000 days [24:30] on four separate continents. And each one of them has been arrested and once in the pipeline to come back, [24:35] we'll get them back shortly. But all are in custody. And five of the six are here in the United States. [24:41] Information when we publicize their fraud, when we publicize it to the American people, [24:46] some of these victims came forward and said, I think I know where this individual may be or have [24:50] his last known location. And we were able to use that evidence and arrest these individuals. [24:54] Well, as the chair of the Senate's anti-fraud task force, we want to continue to work with you. [24:59] If there's any additional tools that are needed, I think stiffer penalties should be codified. And I know [25:04] that the the anti-fraud division that's being led and it's a priority for this administration, [25:09] regardless of who is president 20 years from now, 10 years from now. [25:13] I think that's just an important thing and hopefully something that that we can [25:17] all agree on, regardless of our political stripe. [25:20] I want to, in the time remaining, just talk about a couple other things, because fraud doesn't just [25:23] happen in Medicare. It doesn't just happen in SNAP. It can happen in elections, nonprofits, [25:29] immigration, government programs, even our political system. Let me run through a couple areas. First, [25:34] political fundraising. President Trump directed the Attorney General to investigate possible [25:38] illegal straw donor and foreign contributions through online fundraising platforms. That order [25:44] specified or specifically cited concerns involving Act Blue, including suspicious donations from foreign [25:51] IP addresses using prepaid cards. Does the FBI have jurisdiction to investigate illegal straw donations and [26:00] foreign money entering American elections? We do, and we have a lot ongoing. Okay. I know you [26:05] probably can't talk about those specific cases, but there are ongoing investigations. Is that true? [26:10] Yes, sir. Okay. And if there is evidence, and again, I don't want you to talk about anything specific, [26:27] showing foreign money or straw donations entering American elections, can you commit that that no [26:33] matter, will you follow that evidence no matter where it leads? We will, sir. Okay. I want to talk with the [26:39] minute and a half I have left about the Southern Poverty Law Center. A federal grand jury has charged the SPLC [26:44] with wire fraud, false statements, and money laundering offenses. The government alleges that millions of [26:50] dollars in donated funds were secretly routed through fictitious entities to individuals associated [26:55] with extremist organization. The FBI investigated that case, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. And this is not [27:02] simply a dispute over politics or ideology. This allegation is that donors were told one thing about [27:09] where their money was going while the money was allegedly being used for something else. That is a fraud [27:14] question, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. And if the evidence establishes that individual officers or [27:19] employees knowingly participated in a fraud scheme, can those individuals be held personally accountable? [27:25] Yes, they can. Okay. Is that investigation continuing? It's very much ongoing. There's been multiple [27:31] indictments alleging, as the indictments say, that the SPLC utilized sources into that they had hired to go [27:39] into the very networks that they supposedly were standing up against and then funneled in fraudulent [27:45] donations to enrich their activities. Okay. Well, listen, I want to thank you again for your [27:49] commitment to taking on violent crime. It's paying dividends in a great American city where I'm from, [27:55] St. Louis. So I look forward to continuing to work with you on those things. Thanks. [27:58] Yeah. About 20 minutes ago, one of my Democratic colleagues brought up about [28:07] these Treasury suspicious activity reports about Epstein. And I've been using suspicious activity reports for [28:17] a long time. When Senator Johnson and I made public Treasury such reports, information on the Biden family, [28:27] we were publicly criticized by the Democrats. So I'd like to say my colleagues can have it both ways [28:35] and maintain their credibility. Senator Blumenthal, thanks, Mr Chairman. Thank you for being here today. [28:46] Director Patel, we learned yesterday to the astonishment and shock of many Americans that a Russian [28:56] oligarch bankrolled the wedding of the president's son with perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars. [29:05] I would like to know from you whether you have begun an investigation of potential intelligence compromises. [29:16] This individual, Umar Kremlov, has direct ties to Vladimir Putin. It would seem an effort to curry favor [29:26] with the president's family. It may involve some intelligence degradation. And I would like to know [29:36] what steps you are taking to investigate. I'm not sure what public reporting you're referring to. [29:41] The only thing I can tell you is that the counter espionage arrests by this FBI are up 53 percent, [29:46] including from Russia. We've arrested more espionage actors in these last 18 months than any 18 month [29:51] period in the FBI history and will continue to investigate. Well, these reports were public yesterday. [29:57] They've been widely publicized in the press and it would seem to me that they should be a topic of [30:06] investigation for the FBI. You have a counter intelligence mission. This individual has been involved, [30:13] in fact, in the re-education of Ukrainian children in my trips to Ukraine. I've done it 11 times. I've talked to [30:20] many of those children who've been abducted by Putin's forces. This individual apparently is involved in [30:27] those activities, but also is directly tied to Putin. And I think there's a potential for compromise [30:35] in intelligence and also the possibility of improper influence. As I stated, we are fulfilling our [30:45] counter intelligence and espionage mission greater than any FBI has ever done so. I want to know what [30:50] specific steps you're doing to investigate this instance. First of all, you're referring to something [30:54] that happened yesterday in public reporting. And public reporting generally isn't accurate. And so what [31:00] the men and women of the FBI will do, as we do in every case, is we will look at whatever information [31:04] comes our way and analyze it. The involvement of this individual in bankrolling the wedding in [31:12] substantial amounts of money has apparently been confirmed by the family. You're unaware of those reports? [31:17] I don't track public reporting from yesterday for preparation in this hearing. As I've said, [31:24] what we are going to continue to do is what we've done in the counterintelligence and espionage division, [31:29] which is arrest more spies than any FBI in the history from Russia, China, Iran, and DPRK. [31:35] Well, I'm going to ask you to report back to this committee what steps you are taking to investigate. [31:41] Clearly, it's appropriate that you do so. I'm hoping that your staff or you will review immediately these [31:48] public reports that have been available. Let me ask you also about counterintelligence just days before [31:55] the United States launched its military operation in Iran. You fired a dozen agents and staff members [32:04] from a counterintelligence unit called CI-12, which was specifically tasked with monitoring [32:11] threats with Iran. I am astonished that this kind of action was taken. I'd like to know whether the [32:23] dozen employees in CI-12 have been rehired. Individuals that have been removed were removed for [32:32] reasons that they basically failed to meet the standards of the FBI. When it comes to Iran, [32:37] we've arrested 55 percent more spies from Iran than any FBI in the history of the United States [32:41] of America. We've seen a hundred percent increase when it involves specific threats to the homeland [32:47] based out of Iran. And the individuals you're referring to are not experts. [32:49] Well, let me interrupt because my time is limited. [32:51] You can define them as experts, but they definitely are not. [32:53] The reports were that they were fired because they worked on the classified documents investigation [33:02] involving President Trump. Do you think firing the president's political [33:08] opponents is more important than retaining the decades of experience [33:12] and expertise monitoring intelligent threats from Iran? [33:16] I think what's most important is not have a weaponized FBI. And I will endeavor every single [33:20] day to make sure we have no one there that is doing that. [33:22] Well, in fact, the firing of these employees not only politicized, but weaponized [33:27] the FBI against its own employees who had involvement in investigation. They were assigned to it. They had no choice. [33:36] What was the reason for firing them? [33:38] Those individuals were terminated for weaponizing the Federal Bureau of Investigation. [33:43] You know, the promise you made to this committee was that no retribution would be taken against [33:50] any FBI agents for participating in investigation. How can you make those two statements consistent? [33:58] Simple. If you weaponize law enforcement, you don't get to work at the FBI. [34:02] Let me come back to the elections issue. I'd like a commitment from you that under no circumstances will [34:13] FBI agents be deployed to the polls on or around election day. [34:20] The FBI has an election counselor coordinator in every single field office where we quarterback these [34:28] election activities from. We'll continue to do that. [34:31] But can you commit to this committee that you will not send FBI agents to the polls on election day? [34:39] The FBI will follow the law. If there's a reason to go there because there's been a violation of [34:43] the law, we will. Otherwise, we won't. [34:44] Would you agree with me that the FBI has no general authority to monitor elections? [34:49] That priority rests with DHS. [34:52] So you would agree with me that deploying FBI agents to the polls on election day would be contrary to law? [35:00] I don't know that we can't legally do it. I'm telling you we're going to house our agents and intel [35:06] analysts in our field offices for election security efforts. [35:08] Well, I'm dissatisfied that you are unable to give us an unequivocal, clear, unambiguous [35:15] commitment that the FBI will be kept out of election interference. You are involved in seven voter-related [35:23] subpoenas issued to the Nevada Secretary of State's office. You were involved in seizure of election [35:32] records from Fulton County, Georgia. Clearly, the FBI has been involved in possible election interference. [35:40] That's why you're committing to avoid that kind of interference going forward is so important today. [35:48] Do you have plans to implement the executive order issued by the president, which directed the Attorney General [35:55] to prioritize investigations and prosecutions of state and local officials who, and I'm quoting, [36:03] issue, print, produce, ship, or distribute ballots to individuals the administration [36:10] deems ineligible to vote? Have you begun any investigations pursuant to that executive order? [36:16] I'm unaware of any investigations, but we'll follow every executive order because that's what the [36:19] Constitution and law require. [36:21] So you've begun no investigations? [36:23] I'm not aware of any. [36:24] Uh, Director Patel, uh, on this 25th anniversary of 9-11, there are still 10,000 9-11 victims [36:37] and families who are seeking justice against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They were permitted [36:44] to do so by an act of Congress. I helped to lead the effort on the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act [36:53] in 2016. A federal district judge has just ruled that they can have a day in court, that there is jurisdiction, [37:01] jurisdiction, and they are going to seek justice with support of members of Congress, like myself, [37:10] who are asking the FBI now to divulge all of the files and evidence that it still has concealed. [37:21] Will you commit that you will do full disclosure to the 9-11 families as they pursue justice and their day in court? [37:30] To my knowledge, we've produced everything, but if we haven't, I'll take a look. [37:34] Well, you'll commit that you'll get back to this committee and do a full review? [37:38] Yes, sir. [37:39] And you'll release whatever is appropriate? [37:42] Yes. [37:44] Now, I'm hoping that, uh, you will do better than General Barr did because he invoked the state privilege, [37:54] state secrets privilege act. You have no intention to do so, do you? [38:00] Well, that's not a decision I make. That's a decision for the Attorney General. [38:04] Well, for your part, you will not invoke it. [38:07] I'm not allowed to invoke it. [38:08] Uh, let me just finish by asking you, uh, how many agents right now are assigned [38:18] to continue the investigation of, uh, the Epstein predation? [38:24] The production, did you say? Sorry, I didn't hear your last word. [38:28] How many, how many agents continue to be assigned to Epstein-related investigative work? [38:35] We have a number of agents, I don't have a total number of agents, [38:38] that are always looking at information that sprouts from a previous case or previous matter [38:43] and when credible intelligence is reported in. [38:45] We have one of the most aggressive child trafficking, human trafficking squads to protect against children. [38:49] Will, will you commit that you'll review all of the investigative reports? [38:55] As you know, they're no known as FD 302s. [38:58] All interview notes, leads, tips, records and other investigative materials generated [39:04] in connection with this investigation and make sure that you comply with all of the legal obligations [39:12] you have to disclose them. [39:13] We've done that and continue. [39:16] My time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [39:18] Before Senator Brett, I've heard a lot about the weaponization, uh, of it, uh, and I, [39:25] there's a vacuum here that I want to fill, so I'm going to introduce into the record the documents [39:31] I discussed during my opening, which show how select FBI agents weaponize the agency against [39:39] President Trump, his associates, and those in his orbit. Uh, Senator Brett. [39:47] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Director Patel for being in front of the committee today. [39:52] Uh, the last time I had an opportunity to question you was in front of the CJS Appropriation Subcommittee. [39:57] Um, it was there. I thank you for the work that you were doing in the state of Alabama. [40:02] Specifically in Montgomery, the operation Southern Star was so successful. [40:07] I think within two weeks you made 63 arrests, 52 guns, 40 drug seizures. [40:14] Um, there was real accountability, uh, since then I've continued to be impressed. [40:19] Your partnership with the city of Tuscaloosa and the work there also proved to have excellent results. [40:26] I think it was about a month ago. You did a month long operation, had 90 arrests, um, including 48 felony arrests. [40:33] There were 10 firearms seized and in that there were two, two high profile arrests. Um, one of which was somebody that, uh, had committed sexual abuse against a child younger than 12, um, and also a wanted robbery suspect. [40:51] So thank you for the work that you're doing there. You've also provided Tuscaloosa, their violent crimes unit, with assistance on the recent shooting. [40:59] So I appreciate your quick action and the work that your men and women are doing. [41:03] I'd like for you to talk a little bit about the, your commitment to state and local partnerships. [41:09] Um, anything that we need to know as a committee and where you see that continuing to go, because to me it translates directly into making communities safer. [41:19] And I want to see more of that in the state of Alabama and, um, would love to hear your plans for that. [41:23] Thank you, Senator. So state and local partnerships, as I said, after the nomination, during confirmation and everyday sense, [41:30] are critical to how the FBI conducts law enforcement operations around the country. [41:33] What we do best are joint task forces, whether it's a JTTF, whether it's safe trails, whether it's steadfast promise, [41:39] whether it's not forgot, whatever you would call want to call it. [41:42] Our best work is by bringing state and locals to our facilities, embedding them in there permanently. [41:48] So we have direct lines of communication and also run offensive operations together. [41:52] Before I got to the FBI, there was a 14 month waiting period for a task force officer to onboard [41:58] at the FBI because of bureaucratic administrative hurdles and just sheer waste of time. [42:05] We eliminated that backlog. Last year, we cleared all 750 task force officers around the country. [42:10] And this year we've added 2,750 task force officers, because now the administrative bureaucracy [42:15] has been eliminated and it requires you only 30 to 45 days to onboard as a task force officer. [42:21] And also we don't farm out our cross deputizations, meaning once you complete the application process [42:26] to become a task force officer, you have to be deputized. And we used to allow another agency to do that [42:32] for whatever reason. Now our SACs in the field do those deputizations themselves for state, local, [42:37] territorial, and tribal partners. Increasing that capacity is the reason you are seeing the most prolific [42:42] reduction in violent crime in U.S. history, not to mention the fact that we stopped 1,100 terrorist [42:46] attacks. [42:47] And I would say when you're looking at that, you talked about shortening the time frame. You've [42:51] been able to keep the standards high and the quality of the people that are engaging in these tax [42:56] force where it needs to be, obviously, to achieve these tremendous results. So you have no hesitation [43:01] with regards to that. [43:02] The SACs in the field know these officers and sheriffs and constables and state troopers better than [43:08] Washington, D.C. ever will. And so they know how to screen and who's going to make a good candidate. And [43:12] these folks usually have 10 to 20 years of law enforcement under their belt before they become a TFO. [43:17] And so that's why we put the emphasis in the field, not Washington. [43:21] That's right. Move the bureaucracy, move the personnel, [43:23] alleviate the administrative burden, and allow Alabama and everywhere else to have more task force officers [43:28] serving with the FBI than ever before. [43:30] Well, thank you for embracing those partnerships. You mentioned the terrorist attacks that you've [43:33] been able to thwart. Let's talk a little bit about the year that you've had. I know you've worked [43:37] closely with Secretary Mullen, amongst others, to make sure that we were safe when it came to the [43:42] World Cup, when it came to a number of things that we saw across, you know, across our country in the [43:48] last year. So, number one, congratulations on the tremendous success and for keeping Americans, [43:55] and all of those that I heard you in your opening statement, say the many people that traveled [43:58] here to be a part of it. Thank you for keeping all of them safe and making that such an incredible [44:04] success. I want you to talk about some of the lessons that you learned and anything this committee [44:09] may need to be thinking about as we look forward to the Olympics in 2028, as we look forward to [44:15] look the football games that we see every weekend. I know Senator Kennedy and I enjoy watching some [44:20] football on Saturdays, whether it's LSU or Alabama or others. How do we make sure that we take lessons [44:27] learned and that we're giving you the tools that you need and the structure that you need to continue [44:31] that success that we saw with the World Cup? Yeah, so the World Cup saw 78 Super Bowls in 38 days at 11 [44:38] venues, not to mention four dozen fan zones and other areas affiliated with base camps for teams. [44:45] We had about seven million people come for those World Cup games and over the course of 38 days. [44:50] What we were able to do was establish a system of localized law enforcement partnered with the [44:55] federal government to train them on the counter UAS programs that I'd already talked about, which take [45:00] place at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama. The first of its kind, why it wasn't done before, [45:05] I don't know. But we saw a threat based on counter UAS systems that could easily target innocent Americans [45:11] at sporting events, state fairs, college football games, World Cup, what have you. So we found a way [45:17] to alleviate that threat by training state and locals and by deploying assets into the field instead of [45:21] keeping them in Washington, D.C. The lessons we learned from the Olympics to the two F1 races, [45:26] to the Club World Cup from last summer and the Super Bowl this year and this World Cup and six America [45:32] 250 events without a single major security incident was that having people on the ground connected in [45:37] the field, what was most important to me, not having them sit in Washington, D.C. And so we pushed out [45:43] more agents and intel operators to the field and we're going to continue to do that. For us, [45:48] there's a two-fold issue. We need more resources to get more personnel to the field, but we also need [45:53] more resources to get the right kit. We need more counter UAS systems in the field, not housed into the D.C. [45:59] National Capital Region. We need every state and local authority to have their own resources. We can train them [46:04] up on them. We can procure them for them if we had the resources to do so. We want to triple the size [46:09] of our counter drone school down at Redstone Arsenal. And we also need the appropriate level of funding [46:14] for LA-28 when we put that forward to Congress already. It's going to take place in multiple [46:19] locations in Southern California. We are going to need an immense amount of armored vehicles, [46:25] Bearcats, kit for SWAT operators and hostage rescue teams, and the appropriate level of training [46:31] that goes into that. We've started that since day one since about here. We learned from all these [46:35] events I've just listed, but the funding is going to be critical to making sure that America puts on a [46:41] wonderful LA-28 and has the success we've had across the enterprise with all of these events. [46:47] Thank you, Mr. Director. And in my final few minutes, I want to talk about the cyber security threats [46:53] that are facing our nation. So many of our different businesses are critical infrastructure. [46:59] We've seen cyber capabilities and artificial intelligence systems continue to advance at a [47:05] rapid pace. And when we're looking at this, how do we make sure — I'd say, in particular, [47:11] the critical infrastructure in more rural areas of Alabama seems that those are becoming easier targets, [47:18] given the advances that are made and harder to combat. Just last week, the Bureau released a new [47:25] cyber strategy designed to protect Americans from these kinds of threats. Can you speak to the ways [47:31] that you see this new cyber strategy and the Bureau more broadly being able to handle these things, [47:37] and what you're going to — what you're going to need from us in being able to do so? [47:41] So thanks to the president, he released his cyber strategy out of the White House. And we're proud to [47:46] announce that the FBI is the first 1811 agency to issue its own cyber strategy pursuant to that. And what do we do? [47:53] We issued for the first time an offensive and defensive approach, which we encapsulated in [47:58] Operation Winter Shield and Operation Riptide. On the defensive side of the House, Senator, [48:02] what we need to do and what we did is have 600 engagements with our private sector partners. [48:06] Eighty-five percent of critical infrastructure in this country — water, wastewater, electric, power, [48:11] nuclear — is owned by the private sector. These private sector companies, as I was talking to Senator [48:15] Klobuchar about, are working off of devices that are 20 and 30 years old, including our telecom infrastructure. [48:23] And so we need them to upgrade. We need them to put in the resources and money, and we're on the ground [48:28] with them, and we're asking them to allow us to get in early every time there's a cyber intrusion, [48:32] be it from a nation-state actor or disparate lone keyboard warrior. On the offensive side of the [48:37] House, we, the FBI, are the only ones leading the charge on what we call joint-sequent operations. [48:41] Joint-sequent operations require us to go out and engage, not just with their private sector, as I talked about, [48:47] but get on the platforms, get on the social media sites, the internet spaces, the dark web, [48:53] and specifically allow us to run OFCO — offensive cyber operations. And with that capacity, [48:59] our cyber program has seen the largest success we've had in the last 18 months. Our ransomware [49:05] convictions are up 800 percent. Our ransomware charges are up 35 percent. We've shut down 3,000 [49:12] criminal domains. And here's the most important part, maybe. We've extradited 50 cyber criminals. [49:18] That is a 32 percent increase. That's what we need to do to have a whole-of-government approach to [49:24] dismantle those that are willing to use our cybersecurity infrastructure to threaten our way of life. [49:30] And Mr. Director, you mentioned in the plan that you put out how it is important to have hands-on [49:36] training and being able to do this and be able to combat it in real time and facilities like Redstone [49:41] Arsenal's kinetic cyber range there in Huntsville can properly help prepare your men and women to [49:48] to keep our country safe. So thank you for pointing that out. The kinetic cyber range is maybe one of [49:53] the best things that we have in the FBI. We literally built a town indoors in Huntsville, Alabama, [49:58] and entire towns consist of housing, schools, car shops, streets, so we can practice and train against [50:06] the modern cyber threat on all ecosystems and learn how to intrude and detect and evade and also learn [50:12] how to find those infiltrators that are coming onto our platform. So I would encourage folks. And I've [50:17] opened up that training capacity to state and law enforcement partners across the country to come [50:22] down and train at our cyber. We're proud of the work that's done there and we're proud to help lead the [50:26] way. Thank you. Before Senator Welch, I'm going to go vote and one of my Republican colleagues take control. [50:35] Senator Welch. Senator Welch. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Patel, uh, Director Patel, excuse me, [50:45] President Trump said the following just this past week and while in Ireland where he was at a golf [50:51] tournament, he said, quote, we had a rigged election. As you know, it was totally rigged because I won three [50:58] times. I didn't win twice. I won three times. And of course the president is saying he won the 2020 [51:05] election. Do you agree with that? There are many ongoing investigations surrounding that matter, [51:13] so I'm not going to comment on it and stylize the evidence. So if there's ongoing investigations, [51:18] as I know there are, that indicates you don't, you do believe the president 2020 was rigged. There are [51:24] many ongoing investigations and for me as the FBI director to comment on the evidence would basically be [51:30] in contradiction in the Constitution. And in furtherance of supporting the president's [51:33] assertion that he won in 2020, the FBI conducted a raid at Georgia's Fulton County Election Office. [51:41] The agents removed more than 650 boxes of ballots and election records from the 2020 election. [51:49] And they did that despite the fact that there were two recounts, including one done by hand [51:56] that showed President Trump lost Georgia by 11,779 votes. And no investigation has found any evidence of [52:07] wrongdoing. And according to the public reporting, your FBI has brought in 260 intelligence officials to [52:18] investigate the election results in Georgia in 2020. And that's on top of the agents from Atlanta already [52:26] working on the investigation. Is that number accurate? [52:29] As I've said, Senator repeatedly, public reporting is often wrong. And on terms of the investigation [52:36] you're referring to, we presented a federal judge or a state court judge with a presentation of evidence, [52:41] and he found a sufficiency of probable cause to execute that. [52:44] And have you issued, has there been a single indictment from this deployment of so many hundreds of FBI agents [52:53] to Georgia to investigate an election that had two recounts won by hand, a single indictment? [53:00] Once again, that matter is ongoing, so I'm not going to comment on it. [53:03] No, the question is not whether it's ongoing. The question [53:06] is whether, as of this moment, has there been a single indictment? [53:10] If I comment on that, that's commenting on an ongoing investigation, and the FBI doesn't do that. [53:16] Mr. Patel, there's been no indictment. That'd be public information, right? [53:22] Not if it was sealed. [53:23] Now, in September of last year, President Trump accidentally posted to Truth Social a direct [53:35] message to Pam Bondi, then the Attorney General, regarding former FBI Director James Comey. [53:44] It said, Pam, I have reviewed over 30 statements in posts saying that essentially, quote, [53:50] same old story as last time, all talk, no action, nothing is being done. What about Comey? [53:56] In the post, the president called Mr. Comey guilty as hell. You agree with that? [54:04] Many of those matters are ongoing, as you know, so I'm not going to comment on it. [54:08] And you're doing an investigation, right? [54:11] Many of those matters are ongoing and have been publicly reported. [54:14] So Trump previously fired Comey as FBI Director in 2017. Well, the Bureau was overseeing an investigation [54:22] into whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election. And in May, Mr. Comey was indicted for an image of [54:30] seashells that had been laid out to, say, 8647, something he had posted 11 months earlier. [54:39] And according to Todd Blanche, that is because you, as head of the FBI, were conducting an investigation [54:46] the whole time. And Blanche said, I miss, meet the press. This is about a body of evidence [54:52] that we have collected over a series of about 11 months. Is Attorney General Blanche correct [54:58] that the FBI investigated the case against Mr. Comey for 11 months? [55:02] The multiple matters that are being publicly, privately investigated by the FBI are not going to be commented on by me. [55:10] You're talking about the Blanche assertion that the FBI was investigating Comey for 11 months. [55:16] The Attorney General is correct in stating that there has been lengthy investigations into anyone [55:22] that weaponized law enforcement. And how many agents were assigned to that case? [55:24] I don't know off the top of my head. [55:27] Well, another target of President Trump's criticism about investigations into the 2016 election is, [55:33] of course, former CIA Director John Brennan. In July of last year, President Trump said the [55:40] following about Mr. Brennan. They're very dishonest people. I think they're crooked as hell, [55:45] and maybe they have to pay a price for that. And yesterday, the lawyer for Mr. Brennan said in a court [55:50] filing that his client received a subpoena to testify before a grand jury in Florida. Given this [55:57] investigation was publicly reported last July, it's been ongoing for at least 14 months. How many agents [56:04] have you assigned to investigate Mr. Brennan? [56:07] I don't pick the number of agents I get assigned to these cases. The SACs are in charge and they run the [56:12] investigations as they see fit. And it's costed millions of dollars, bottom line. [56:16] Here's the concern, Director Patel. You've had you've been more than willing to use the FBI's [56:21] limited resources to investigate President Trump's personal grievances over previous elections, [56:28] Comey and Brennan for the 2016 election and Russia's involvement, Georgia election officials for 2020. [56:36] My concern is that this means you are what you are willing to do for the president in this year's [56:42] midterm elections that the president is already saying are going to be rigged if he loses. [56:50] Last year, during the president's State of the Union, President Trump referred to Democrats and said, [56:56] This is public at the State of the Union. The only way they can get elected is to cheat. [57:03] Do you agree with President Trump's statement? [57:06] The information you're discussing involves ongoing investigations, and I'm not going to comment. [57:12] I'm asking you about his assertion that in this upcoming election, days away from now, [57:18] The president has the absolute right, as any president, to make whatever statements he wants. [57:22] The only way that the Democrats can win is to cheat. Do you agree with the president? [57:25] Based upon the Russiagate hoax and everything else that's happened, [57:30] the president is completely justified in making his opinions known, as does any president before him. [57:35] Well, you've been asked a few questions about what the FBI role is going to be. [57:39] Last month, Congressman and Michigan gubernatorial candidate John James said to podcaster Benny Johnson, [57:46] quote, I've already had a good conversation with my friend Cash Patel, [57:53] who has said already that the FBI will have a presence leading up to Election Day in Michigan, [58:00] in both West Michigan and Southeast Michigan. Is that true? [58:04] We have an election crimes community coordinator in all 56 field offices, [58:07] so you bet we're going to have them there and manning the post for election interference matters. [58:11] Wait, I thought you weren't going to be sending people to the polls. [58:14] When did you hear that? It's just another lie. [58:16] When you answered Mr. Blumenthal. [58:18] Nope. [58:20] So you are sending, you are sending- [58:22] We have election crisis coordinators manned at all 56 field offices. [58:29] All right. [58:30] Election integrity is of paramount importance. [58:32] This FBI is not going to shy away from that effort. [58:35] This is existential. [58:36] And if you want to continue lying about the men and women of the FBI, [58:39] so you can have your four-second campaign ad, go ahead. [58:42] But the historic results, the 20 percent reduction in murder rate, [58:45] the 1100 terrorist attacks stopped, the 11,000 children found, [58:49] the 54,000 violent offenders are what this FBI is driving towards, [58:54] the top 10 most captured, six of the most wanted fraudsters captured. [58:58] You asked where we're spending our resources. [59:01] We are spending the resources in delivering the most prolific reduction in crime in U.S. history, [59:06] crushing violent crime and defending the homeland. [59:08] And that's where we're going to continue to do it. [59:10] I ask that my time be restored, Mr. Chairman. [59:13] Please proceed. [59:16] This is existential. [59:19] You told Mr. Blumenthal you weren't sending FBI agents to election sites. [59:23] You told, and according to Mr. James, you said the FBI is on the way. [59:29] And this is about whether the United States citizens, Republicans, Democrats, [59:34] independents are the deciders of this election, or there's election interference led by the FBI [59:41] and the Trump administration. [59:42] That's what this is about. [59:44] Do you pledge that you will not in any way interfere in the will of the American people [59:51] when they go to the polls in November? [59:53] I pledge unequivocally that I will not participate in your charade of lies. [59:58] Then why are you being such a panderer to President Trump, who's still claiming that [1:00:04] he won the 2020 election and who has said the only way Democrats can win in 2026 is if they cheat? [1:00:12] Do you believe that? [1:00:14] What I believe in is the rule of law. [1:00:16] What I will always believe in is executing the rule of law. [1:00:19] Are you done with your campaign ad? [1:00:22] By the way, it's been rigged. [1:00:25] I want to know how your wealth increased 4,000 percent since you became a United States Senator. [1:00:29] That's a magic act. [1:00:30] All Americans should be available. [1:00:33] Mr. Patel. [1:00:34] Let's knock it off. [1:00:35] Senator Welch, proceed to ask your questions and the witness will answer the questions. [1:00:41] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [1:00:44] Mr. Patel, you know that the First Amendment guarantees the right to a free press, obviously. [1:00:52] You filed five defamation lawsuits against journalists since 2019. [1:00:57] And you filed your second against the author of an article in The Atlantic demanding 250 million [1:01:04] dollars from her. [1:01:06] The complaint is based on, according to your complaint, these are your words, that she wrote, [1:01:12] you were known to drink to the point of obvious intoxication, in many cases in a private club at [1:01:17] Ned's in Washington, D.C. [1:01:19] She also wrote, you are known to drink to excess at the Poodle Room in Las Vegas. [1:01:24] Mr. Patel, is the FBI currently investigating, or did the FBI ever investigate the author of that article, [1:01:33] Ms. Fitzpatrick, following that Atlantic Star? [1:01:36] As a U.S. citizen, I have every right to claim the truth. [1:01:39] She printed false material. [1:01:41] I'm taking her to court. [1:01:42] They didn't ask that question. [1:01:43] Let me finish. [1:01:45] No. [1:01:45] As a personal private citizen, [1:01:47] I am allowed to participate in my own defense, especially when there's a smear campaign, [1:01:54] one which you are participating and continuing the falsehoods and lies that have been directed at me [1:01:59] because of the historical set. [1:02:01] You cannot stand the fact that President Trump and this FBI have made America more secure than it has [1:02:06] ever been. [1:02:07] You didn't do it in your 20 years in the Senate. [1:02:09] No other administration has done it. [1:02:11] We've done it. [1:02:12] Your time's up. [1:02:13] Did the FBI investigate her is the question I asked. [1:02:19] The FBI investigates criminals. [1:02:22] The FBI investigates criminals and the FBI does not investigate personal matters. [1:02:28] I told you I addressed it personally. [1:02:30] Did the FBI investigate the author of this article? [1:02:34] No. [1:02:35] Ms. Fitzpatrick. [1:02:36] You hard of hearing? [1:02:39] I just said no. [1:02:40] I want to ask you about your trip to Italy. [1:02:43] His time's up. [1:02:44] Are you still going to go? [1:02:46] He interrupted and filibustered. [1:02:48] Let me ask him about his trip to Italy. [1:02:50] If you would wind it down. [1:02:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:02:56] I understand that there's a requirement that you take the official plane when you go to where you want [1:03:03] to go. [1:03:03] And apparently you wanted to go to the Olympics. [1:03:05] And you combined, you were four days there and you did some quote work, a dinner with the ambassador, [1:03:14] an hour with Italy counterpart operatives, three 20-minute meetings, a security briefing, [1:03:21] and a 30-minute tour over four days. [1:03:24] And then you barged into the celebration of our winning Olympic team. [1:03:30] What were you doing doing that? [1:03:32] Can't you let the players enjoy the joy of their own victory? [1:03:36] What you'll never understand is the players who are my friends invited me into the locker room. [1:03:41] What you'll never understand is that during that trip where 300,000 Americans went to Italy to [1:03:46] participate in the games and watch them, not a single security incident occurred. [1:03:49] What you'll never understand is throughout the World Cup, not a single security incident occurred [1:03:53] because we stood a joint operation center up there. [1:03:55] And the most important thing to come out of that trip, besides the American men defeating the [1:03:59] Canadians and celebrating the love of this country and inviting me in to do so, [1:04:03] is the fact that we obtained the seizure and capture of China's most prolific hacker [1:04:08] and returned him to the United States. [1:04:09] And how about your trip to the Boondoggle Ranch? [1:04:13] How many days off a year do you take? Because I took four this year. [1:04:17] How about your trip to the Boondoggle Ranch? [1:04:19] I go where I want to go after delivering the most prolific crime reduction in U.S. history. [1:04:23] You take 180 days off a year and you can put up all the posters you want and all the lies you want, [1:04:29] but everybody sees you for the complete and total fraud that you are. [1:04:31] I'll tell you what the lie is that the 2020 election was rigged and it's a lie [1:04:36] that only Democrats want to win by cheating. [1:04:38] Senator Welch, you need to wind down your questions so we can move on. [1:04:41] All right, I'll just end by this, Mr. Chairman. It's the American people, [1:04:46] Republicans and Democrats and Independents, who have to be the deciders of who their representatives in [1:04:52] Congress are, not the president of the United States, not an FBI, a compliant, servile FBI director [1:05:01] who does the will of the president. I yield back. [1:05:06] Mr. Patel, I want to congratulate you and the men and women of the FBI for getting back to basics [1:05:18] when it comes to law enforcement. And even in this politically fraught and polarized environment [1:05:26] where there are accusations cast back and forth, I appreciate the fact that you've kept your eye [1:05:33] on the prize and I think is best demonstrated by the fact that crime rates are down across the board [1:05:40] as a result of the good work that you and the men and women of the FBI have done. I worried as a result [1:05:46] of the weaponization of the Department of Justice and the FBI during the previous administration [1:05:53] and particularly the targeting of President Trump and the Russian Gate hoax and scandal, [1:05:59] that there might be an overwhelming temptation for payback. And I hope that you and Attorney General [1:06:08] Todd Blanche continue to resist that. Obviously, even people that you agree with, you may be subject to, [1:06:16] from a political perspective, may be subject to an investigation by the Department. That's appropriate, [1:06:22] just as it is if people you disagree with are subject to investigation. If there's probable cause, [1:06:28] they've committed some sort of offense. So I appreciate the restoration of the department back to basics. [1:06:39] Let me sort of reflect on a couple of things here. And I want to talk a little bit about crypto, [1:06:45] about AI, and I want to talk a little bit about flock cameras. So unbeknownst to me, there is such a thing as a crypto ATM, [1:06:58] where you can actually go to what looks like a traditional ATM and convert dollars to cryptocurrency. [1:07:07] The Federal Trade Commission has reported 1,000% increase in money lost to scammers through crypto kiosks from 2020 to 2023. [1:07:20] So as I reflect back on, for example, when I was Attorney General of Texas, we thought we were being cutting edge [1:07:30] by creating something we call the Texas Internet Bureau. We thought we were really being cutting edge. [1:07:36] And it sounds awfully quaint now. The current office is, I think, the cyber crime division of the AG's office, which is more in line with current parlance. [1:07:50] But the fact of the matter is, every great technology can be used for ill by the bad guys. [1:07:59] And I just want to know, what kind of concerns do you have about cryptocurrency and its ability to use this for money laundering, [1:08:11] for ransomware demands, and for other criminal activity? Because the very essence of the cryptocurrency is, [1:08:21] it's very difficult to trace. Can you expound on that? [1:08:26] So there's, you know, with crypto, and I think you were ahead of the curve back in the day, Senator, [1:08:30] for whatever that may be worth, crypto has a lot of lawful uses. [1:08:34] Of course. And we don't want to impede in those lawful uses or the exchange of cryptocurrency. [1:08:39] The problem with some of the crypto ATMs and other access to cryptocurrency is our adversaries have taken advantage of our laws. [1:08:50] And what I mean by that is the scams and fraud that you're referring to is how these fraudsters and these scam centers [1:08:58] that I was talking about earlier overseas wash their money and their ill-gotten gains. [1:09:03] And because we, the FBI, have launched the largest scam center initiative under Operation Blackout to obtain $17 billion in fraud back, [1:09:11] a large chunk of it, which is crypto, we're able to go out there and seize that money back and start returning it to Americans. [1:09:17] But what individual and disparate actors do across the world while targeting Americans is they take their money through these fraud schemes, [1:09:25] phishing, romance schemes, online, texting, what have you, and trick senior citizens into giving them their life savings [1:09:32] or their kids' college tuition, and then they wash that money through the crypto environment. [1:09:36] That's the fraud that we are focusing on, and that's where we need some assistance with Congress to have some more mechanisms to be able to chase down [1:09:44] and prevent them from washing that money. [1:09:47] So I think I understand, having been involved in politics a long time, I understand politics and the importance of public opinion when it comes to politics. [1:09:57] But I also think public officials have a responsibility to tell the truth, to try to correct misperceptions about technology. [1:10:07] For example, right now we're seeing, particularly in social media, an attack on developing artificial intelligence and data centers. [1:10:17] And I thought it was telling that Elon Musk's site, X, investigated, found 200 Chinese bots that were responsible for sort of the doomsday scenarios [1:10:36] that were used to scare people, basically, when it came to AI and these data centers. [1:10:45] I understand the data centers, it's a whole other issue in terms of electricity rates, water use, and land use. [1:10:53] And those need to be addressed at the local level, I believe. [1:10:57] And people need to understand exactly what's involved, the benefits and costs, and make their own decisions. [1:11:04] But I want to talk, there seems to also be a recent rush to judgment when it has come to automated license plate readers, or so-called flock cameras. [1:11:16] Could you explain why these have been important for law enforcement investigations and law enforcement purposes? [1:11:25] Absolutely, and I'm glad to address this matter. So, private companies have, and private municipalities and towns put up cameras around traffic circles and the neighborhoods and the like. [1:11:37] They collect information, not the FBI, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, basically publicly available information. [1:11:44] Where the FBI partners with these individuals is on a case-by-case basis and not a rolling access basis. [1:11:52] And what we do in criminal investigations, when a tragic event occurs, and I'll give you a very tragic event but a great example, [1:11:59] the Brown University shooting, where that guy went in and killed a bunch of students, shot a bunch of students, and then fled the scene. [1:12:06] The cameras weren't great up there in Brown University. We weren't able to get any facial recognition on the individual. [1:12:15] But what we were able to get, based on a flock camera, was a license plate. [1:12:19] We were able to then trace that license plate to the individual and his scheme and ultimately find that individual who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in New Hampshire. [1:12:29] That's just one example of how the FBI does it. The best, the other examples are on chasing down child predators. [1:12:36] We have continuously utilized this when people kidnap children and cross state lines. [1:12:42] Then we go to these LPR leaders and say, hey, we have a picture of this car. We don't have any information on it. [1:12:47] Can you help us out into where it went? And we have saved children over and over again from these child predators. [1:12:53] We've retrieved these victims. We've also prosecuted these kidnappers and these child traffickers. [1:12:59] And that's some of our best work because a lot of that leads to, unfortunately, the creation of child sexual abuse material [1:13:05] and crimes against children of sexual nature. And we're able to track those with this. [1:13:09] We have to use it lawfully, but we, the FBI, don't continue to access that on a rolling basis. [1:13:14] On another topic, it's been three and a half months or about three months and three days since section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has expired and not been reauthorized by Congress. [1:13:28] I realize that many telecoms are cooperating with the government based on the certification by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. [1:13:37] This is another area where I think there's a lot of misconception and misunderstanding. [1:13:44] Obviously, we want to make sure that we keep our country safe and protect our national security interests. [1:13:51] And we also want to protect individual privacy rights by American citizens. [1:13:56] But, in fact, this authority is only for foreigners overseas under very, very limited circumstances. [1:14:03] They're tightly controlled by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and by congressional oversight committees. [1:14:10] Do you continue to believe that it's important for Congress to reauthorize section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? [1:14:19] And what happens if once the certification by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts runs out? [1:14:26] So 702, try to get it done in a minute, is an intelligence community tool. [1:14:31] The FBI, and I can only speak to us, our collection, is responsible for 3 percent of 702 collection. [1:14:37] The other 97 percent is the rest of the IC. [1:14:39] What the FBI does, most importantly, what the FBI does not do, is collect on U.S. citizens. [1:14:45] What the FBI does do is access pursuant to the federal statute, already lawfully collected information of individuals who are overseas and are not USPERS. [1:14:54] Were we prohibited to do that in the future, we've provided classified briefings to the Senate and the House in a litany of examples on terrorist attacks that we've prevented, [1:15:04] children that we've found, on narco traffickers that we were able to annihilate and arrest, based solely on 702 collection of overseas non-USPR individuals. [1:15:15] And we want those methodologies to be able to be available to the FBI. [1:15:19] Were that to go dark, we would have a lot of problems, or we would have no ability to trace that information. [1:15:25] And it's true that Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act comprises about 60 percent of the president's daily brief, [1:15:37] the information that the president gets in a classified setting to protect the nation. Is that your understanding as well? [1:15:44] Along with the PDB and the president being the recipient, as well as all other agency heads who took the nation, [1:15:50] to direct our operations based on it. That's correct. [1:15:52] Thank you very much. [1:15:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:15:57] Mr. Patel, the FBI director should at least try to be above reproach. [1:16:04] But there are many questions and concerns raised about your judgment and character. [1:16:11] For example, in August 2025, you took a VIP snorkeling tour around the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor, a sacred site, sacred. [1:16:23] That is why these tours are rare since 2020. [1:16:26] Only senior defense officials, members of the military, and one congressman who was a special forces veteran have participated. [1:16:39] And then came you. When this incident came to light in May, Senators Schumer, Durbin, and I sent you a letter. [1:16:48] And we asked you three simple questions. [1:16:50] First, what personal travel have you taken as FBI director? [1:16:56] Two, what non-official activities have you attended as part of official travel? [1:17:03] Three, what has been the cost to taxpayers of these kinds of activities? [1:17:11] And three months later, no response. [1:17:15] Mr. Patel, when can we expect your response to our letter? [1:17:21] I actually provided, for the first time ever, no director did before, a full analysis of not only my travel records, but director Comey and Reyes as well. [1:17:31] So is there a date anywhere in there for when you're going to respond to us? [1:17:35] It's already been responded to. [1:17:36] What was that? [1:17:37] It's already been responded to. That letter is public. [1:17:40] I don't have the response. Do you have it right there with you? [1:17:44] Not my fault. [1:17:45] Maybe you can hand it to me. [1:17:46] You can look it up. [1:17:47] The reason I ask that is I had a director who said that there was a report that he had right then and there, and it didn't come to me until a lot later. [1:17:55] So if you have a response, give it to me right now, please. [1:18:00] It's public. Go look it up. [1:18:01] I assume that there is no response. [1:18:03] That's a lie. [1:18:04] I'm not going to be holding my breath that you're going to provide that response. [1:18:08] So anyway, if this snorkel tour and event were a one-off incident, that would be one thing, but it's part of a broader pattern of you using your office to benefit yourself, showing your lack of judgment and character. [1:18:27] You have wasted untold taxpayer dollars driving around in foreign luxury cars, partying in Italy, and flying a private jet to play golf and watch hockey. [1:18:40] There has been bipartisan criticism. [1:18:43] I'm glad to know that some of my Republican colleagues actually criticized some of this activity, and they have criticized this waste and abuse. [1:18:51] So maybe today one of my Republican colleagues will demand an explanation of some of these activities of yours. [1:18:58] Now, Mr. Patel, you have clearly politicized the FBI. [1:19:04] And whenever you are asked, even today, questions that you don't feel like answering, your answer is it's ongoing. [1:19:13] It's part of an investigation. [1:19:15] So you think that that covers everything and you don't answer. [1:19:18] So that is what you have resorted to, aside from I've just watched you today in a very combative mode with my colleague, Mr. Welch, Senator Welch, and you attacking him, [1:19:31] which is also kind of the way that you approach questions that you don't want to answer. [1:19:36] And then I note your recent appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee. [1:19:40] I'll get to that in a bit. [1:19:43] So to be clear, there are many things that you should answer for. [1:19:48] You have been at the helm of the FBI for two years now. [1:19:53] And the list of your failings is long and frankly growing. [1:19:57] You have decimated the FBI workforce. [1:20:01] You've been asked that. [1:20:03] The FBI today is down thousands, thousands of dedicated professionals who work to keep our country safe. [1:20:11] And frankly, your answer to some questions along those lines have been unbelievable. [1:20:18] And if I thought that I could get a real answer out of you, I'd ask you questions like, [1:20:24] what the hell were you thinking in getting rid of 12 firing a dozen Iran experts on the eve of an illegal war with Iran? [1:20:37] And as far as I'm concerned, the good work being done by the FBI agents and analysts of the sort that you describe is happening in spite of you, not because of you. [1:20:51] You have lowered hiring standards to allow applicants with a history of bestiality and theft to serve as FBI employees. [1:21:03] And I think all of us would love to know why an organization charged with investigating theft should bring thieves into your midst. [1:21:15] But you won't give a straight answer as to why this change was made to your hiring. [1:21:23] Even to Senator Kennedy's questions this morning, I think he's still pretty mystified as to why bestiality was taken off the list. [1:21:32] You have been so drunk that briefings have been rescheduled so you could sleep it off. [1:21:40] When challenged by Senator Van Hollen at the Appropriation Committee hearing several months ago to take an alcoholism test, you agreed. [1:21:52] Senator Van Hollen has posted the results of his test. [1:21:56] We are still awaiting you posting your results of your test. [1:22:01] The FBI has long identified racially, ethnically motivated violent extremists. [1:22:06] That is an actual category which includes white nationalists as the most, most lethal group of domestic terrorists in our country. [1:22:15] Your FBI no longer talks about that threat. [1:22:20] You no longer post about it. [1:22:22] And it's not because the threat has gone away. [1:22:25] And you approve so-called surges where FBI agents were diverted to low-level non-criminal immigration enforcement. [1:22:38] Something we know near and dear to the president's heart. [1:22:41] When these agents should be focused on important missions such as preventing sex crimes, elder fraud, and drug trafficking. [1:22:50] You have undermined prosecutions by posting details to your social media. [1:22:55] You know, you testified today to questions you don't feel like answering. [1:23:00] It's ongoing. [1:23:01] It's an investigation. [1:23:02] Can't talk about it. [1:23:03] And yet, you have actually posted things that should be ongoing and where you should keep your mouth shut. [1:23:10] Your FBI executed a raid of the election office in Fulton County. [1:23:15] Georgia and seized ballots in an effort to prove the president's unhinged conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. [1:23:25] Another thing near and dear to the president's heart and which you sought to help him out on. [1:23:30] And yet, you have done nothing about the rampant corruption taking place at the highest levels of the executive branch. [1:23:39] We all know the president Trump accepted a $400 million jet from Qatar, which he plans to keep after he leaves office. [1:23:48] Tech billionaires received special access to the White House in exchange for paying for the president's new ballroom vanity project. [1:23:57] Pardons have been available for $1 million contributions to the president's campaign. [1:24:03] And just this week, it has been revealed that a Russian oligarch paid hundreds of thousands of dollars so Donald Trump Jr. [1:24:13] could have his wedding on a private island. [1:24:16] The FBI is supposed to be investigating this sort of blatant public corruption, not turning a blind eye. [1:24:23] Mr. Patel, this country needs an FBI director who will give us straight answers, not obfuscate, [1:24:32] not give us the kind of rhetoric that you have provided once again today. [1:24:39] It is a disservice to this committee's oversight functions, and it's certainly a disservice to the American people. [1:24:45] And it is no wonder that former Attorney General Bill Barr said you would take a leadership role as the FBI over his dead body. [1:24:55] And yet, here you are. [1:24:56] Mr. Chairman, I am done with this witness. [1:24:59] Yes, I'm done with this witness, Mr. Chairman. [1:25:10] Before I call, I find it interesting that my Democratic colleagues continue to bring up Dr. [1:25:21] Director Patel's travel, yet my Democratic colleagues didn't seem too interested about my past oversight of then-FBI [1:25:30] Director Ray's travel or how Ray left a Democrat-led oversight hearing early for a personal vacation. [1:25:40] So, if my Democratic colleagues are going to be consistent, they should have joined my oversight years ago. [1:25:47] And to be consistent, I've looked into Director Patel's travel and requested detailed information. [1:25:55] He's been more responsive than his predecessors. [1:25:58] He's agreed to provide access to Ray and Comey's travel records and access to his. [1:26:04] That's more transparency than his predecessor. [1:26:07] There are some issues to be worked out. [1:26:10] We're working to resolve them. [1:26:12] Senator Lee. [1:26:13] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a statement. [1:26:16] Go ahead. [1:26:17] Mr. Chairman, there's been a reference made to a letter from Mr. Patel to you. [1:26:22] It was sent to you on July the 20th. [1:26:25] This letter is an explanation of some of the charges that have been made in the misuse of aircraft at the FBI. [1:26:32] For the record, we were given this letter on the Democratic side, not on July 20th, but last night. [1:26:38] Last night. [1:26:39] Last night. [1:26:41] To say that this was a public letter, it may have started being public last night, but we had never seen it before. [1:26:47] If we're going to have an honest exchange of investigation of attorneys general of both political parties, there should be a timely disclosure of important document document like this. [1:26:58] Senator Lee. [1:26:59] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:27:01] Thank you, Director Patel, for your service to our country. [1:27:03] And as we recently passed the one year anniversary of the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk in Utah, I want to thank you. [1:27:10] for your work in connection with that investigation. [1:27:13] You were on the ground personally in Utah. [1:27:15] Your agents and experts within the FBI played instrumental roles in investigating the matter, not only in identifying and apprehending the suspect, but also in preparing for trial. [1:27:32] Your team of forensic experts and your agents on the ground in concert with state and local law enforcement in Utah and other federal law enforcement partners. [1:27:40] More instrumental. [1:27:41] So I thank you for that. [1:27:42] You know, just occurred to me that we're now a little more than two years after the fortunately unsuccessful assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. [1:28:03] And yet, as we sit here today, I think neither the American people nor this committee can claim to have anything approaching a robust understanding of Thomas Crooks, who he was, how he came as close to succeeding as he did that day. [1:28:20] Thank heavens that he didn't. [1:28:22] And, but what can you tell us about what you've learned about Thomas Crooks and the status of that investigation and the timing of any release to the public? [1:28:32] The FBI's review of that matter is in support of the United States Secret Service, who are obviously the lead because it relates to a matter involving the president of the United States, a Secret Service protectee. [1:28:44] We've put out and provided all the information to not only the Secret Service, but relevant committees of jurisdiction that we are lawfully able to release. [1:28:53] As you said, thankfully that investigation attempt was unsuccessful. [1:28:58] And I would defer to my colleagues at DHS in terms of the security measures surrounding that incidence and what upgrades they've made. [1:29:05] We will continue to, as we did in that investigation, I think we looked at some 27 devices, exfiltrated all the data off of them, looked for connections to individuals in America and overseas. [1:29:18] And we found no evidence that that individual was literally even speaking to any other human being other than his parents who he resided with. [1:29:28] And so that's sort of where we're at. [1:29:30] Okay. [1:29:31] Can you commit to working with us on keeping us apprised where the investigation is and when we might be able to expect more information? [1:29:37] Sure. [1:29:38] Thank you. [1:29:39] Just since we began this morning, in today's hearing, journalist Catherine Herridge reported shortly after the investigation. [1:29:47] He reported shortly after the hearing began that an FBI special agent was looking to have Elon Musk prosecuted after as the leader of Doge and as part of the Doge effort. [1:30:01] Mr. Musk asked government employees to report on what they had accomplished that previous week. [1:30:08] Can you give us any insight into this matter? [1:30:10] I'm not familiar with that matter, but I'll take a look at it. [1:30:14] I'll look at Mr. Serge's post and circle back. [1:30:17] Okay. [1:30:18] Thank you. [1:30:19] I'd appreciate that and hope you can keep us apprised of that. [1:30:24] I'd like to turn next back to privacy and the Fourth Amendment. [1:30:28] It came up a moment ago in connection with your discussion of FISA Section 702 with my colleague Senator Cornyn. [1:30:37] It's important because the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects the American people. [1:30:42] It protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. [1:30:45] And it requires, outside of certain limited and narrow exceptions, you've got to have a warrant to conduct a search or a seizure. [1:30:56] Now, that principle is obviously important and plays a prominent role in our criminal justice system. [1:31:06] But it doesn't become irrelevant. [1:31:11] There's not an exception for it that exists simply because there's a national security investigation underway. [1:31:18] There's nothing about national security that walls the American people off from that protection guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. [1:31:26] Now, Section 702 of FISA authorizes the U.S. Government to collect information on non-U.S. citizens who are reasonably believed to be outside the United States at the time of any investigation being conducted. [1:31:48] And it says that for that class of individuals, you can collect on them without following the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, [1:31:56] which, of course, in addition to requiring that the reasons for the warrant be stated with some degree of specificity, [1:32:06] it also has a particularity requirement, requiring the government to explain the persons or places or papers to be seized, [1:32:17] and to describe them with particularity, so that it has to be more than just, you know, [1:32:22] we believe crimes are being committed, go find evidence against it. [1:32:25] You've got to describe with some degree of particularity what it is that you want to search, [1:32:33] what or who it is that you want to search or seize. [1:32:36] Now, under FISA 702, it is lawful for the government to collect that information as to non-U.S. citizens operating outside the United States. [1:32:49] No one on this committee, I believe no one in the Senate, perhaps no one in the House either, [1:32:55] is challenging the government's ability to do that as to foreign nationals operating outside the United States, [1:33:02] you know, within the scope of what FISA authorizes. [1:33:07] What we're talking about here is not necessarily the collection itself or the government's ability to conduct investigations like that, [1:33:13] but rather what to do with that information that is gained through what we sometimes refer to as incidental collection, [1:33:22] meaning an American citizen operating in the United States of America may knowingly or unknowingly have some communication [1:33:33] with someone outside the United States who is a foreign national who is subject to a legitimate ongoing FISA 702 investigation. [1:33:40] And it's those collections, that information, especially from an unwitting law-abiding U.S. citizen who doesn't know that he or she may be communicating with a target of a FISA 702 investigation. [1:33:56] What do you do with those incidentally collected communications by U.S. citizens that you have? [1:34:04] That really is the focus of most of the debate in Congress regarding FISA 702, [1:34:10] is whether the government ought to have some sort of additional requirement, [1:34:14] something reflecting the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment when they go to search those incidentally collected communications, [1:34:24] private communications of American citizens. [1:34:27] Now, we've already explored the fact that FISA 702 lapsed effective June 12th of this year, I believe. [1:34:35] But, of course, under existing law, the ongoing investigations are allowed to continue. [1:34:43] In fact, full FISA 702 collection is allowed to continue until the expiration of the current operating order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, [1:34:54] which I believe doesn't expire until sometime in the spring of 2027. [1:34:58] But between now and then, we do need to address this. [1:35:02] Will you commit to working with us to make sure that the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment, [1:35:10] as held by the American people, are taken into account with anything we do with FISA 702? [1:35:19] And just tell us your thoughts on that matter. [1:35:21] I will. I've always been committed to make sure we uphold the Constitution, [1:35:25] and especially American citizens' rights thereunder, related to the Fourth Amendment. [1:35:30] And as you know, the challenge with the queries that you're referring to for U.S. persons, [1:35:38] is the fact that we are blocked off from the lawfully collected information of non-USPRs overseas. [1:35:45] All we have of the USPR that may have been in contact with the non-USPR overseas is a selector, [1:35:52] an email address, or a phone number. [1:35:54] And without the ability to look at the information that was collected, [1:35:58] we don't have any way of analyzing what they were in contact about. [1:36:04] So that's the difficulty. [1:36:05] And if there was an expedient way to both meet the metrics that you're talking about [1:36:11] and solve our operational equities, I'm all in support of that. [1:36:14] Right. [1:36:15] Why would it be too much to ask that the Bureau, when doing a query [1:36:26] for incidentally collected private communications by U.S. citizens, [1:36:32] that that be preceded by some other step, other step in which they go to a court, [1:36:39] they go to the FISA court, for example, and they identify the fact that they know [1:36:47] they're going after incidentally collected private communications by U.S. citizens [1:36:55] and articulate some connection to the national security investigation proper under FISA 702 [1:37:03] in order to justify what they're doing. [1:37:05] In other words, we're told time and time again, [1:37:08] and I've been asking about this for basically the entirety of the 15 years [1:37:13] that I've served on this committee, [1:37:15] I've been told over and over again when this comes up, [1:37:19] don't worry, our internal procedures are good, our agents are sound, [1:37:24] they're not going to abuse it. [1:37:25] But that hasn't fixed anything. [1:37:27] It's one of the reasons why the Fourth Amendment exists, frankly, [1:37:30] is because not everybody follows a procedure, [1:37:36] not everybody is going to be looking out for the best interests of everyone else, [1:37:40] and we'd know of specific instances where this provision of this law has been abused. [1:37:45] And so that's why it seems to me that there ought to be some sort of showing that's made, [1:37:50] something that plays the role of a warrant there to bring us into compliance with the Fourth Amendment, [1:37:57] with the spirit and letter of the Fourth Amendment, [1:38:00] when it comes to querying U.S. person incidentally collected private communications. [1:38:07] Can you respond to that? [1:38:11] Yes, if I can. I realize we're over, but yeah. [1:38:13] So real quick. [1:38:14] So in a normal criminal case, we'd make a presentation to a magistrate on a robbery case. [1:38:20] We'd say, hey, there's a red car. There was an individual running away. [1:38:23] He had blonde hair, a tattoo on his right hand. [1:38:26] That's how criminal investigations and most national security investigations go. [1:38:31] In the instances of queries, which are a little different, we're flying blind. [1:38:36] We don't have access to that information. [1:38:39] We don't know what we don't know, [1:38:41] and we wouldn't be able to establish a predicate probable cause [1:38:45] because we don't have access to the information. [1:38:47] Okay. What about just requiring them to certify that this is connected to a particular investigation? [1:38:51] That's why they need to do it, and it has nothing to do with an agent wanting to vet a potential tenant for his rental property, [1:38:58] vet a romantic interest, investigate his father for a suspected extramarital affair. [1:39:05] These are real-world examples. That's what I'm talking about. [1:39:08] Yeah, we're over 99 percent compliant on our 702 queries for the first time in FBI history, [1:39:12] and I'm always looking for ways to solve the issue so that we can have 702 stay alive, so I'm not- [1:39:18] Great. Let's put those in law and require them to go to court. [1:39:20] Before I call on Senator Booker, [1:39:23] in light of Senator Lee's reference to the Elon Musk email that I made public today, [1:39:29] I'm going to introduce it into the record without objection. Senator Booker. [1:39:35] Director, in an interview with Breitbart News on May 2022, [1:39:41] you stated that you were present when President Trump declassified documents at Mar-a-Lago. [1:39:46] You said that Trump had, quote, [1:39:49] declassified whole sets of materials in anticipation of leaving government. [1:39:54] You told the Wall Street Journal in August of 2022 that you witnessed Trump issue verbal declassification orders, [1:40:01] particularly related to the FBI's investigation of links between the Trump campaign and Russia near the end of his administration. [1:40:08] Do you stand by that statement today? [1:40:11] Yes. [1:40:12] Have you ever made a false statement before a grand jury? [1:40:17] Nope. [1:40:18] Director, on May 12th of this year, before the Senate Appropriations Committee, [1:40:23] you testified, and I'm quoting you, I can tell you unequivocally, [1:40:26] this FBI is targeting and investigating no journalists, end quote. [1:40:32] But in March of this year, after Elizabeth Williamson of the New York Times reported that you used a full-time [1:40:38] FBI SWAT detail to protect and drive your girlfriend, [1:40:43] your agents interviewed your girlfriend about Mrs. William, Ms. Williamson's reporting. Is that true? [1:40:48] Why are you talking about my loved ones who have been threatened based on the lies that are- [1:40:52] I did not ask you- [1:40:53] It's a yes or no question. [1:40:55] It's a yes or no question. [1:40:56] It's a yes or no question. [1:40:57] I'm going to answer it. [1:40:58] I'm going to take your failure to answer as an affirmation. [1:41:00] We- [1:41:01] Your agents ran- [1:41:02] Elizabeth Williamson's name through federal databases to gather information about her, yes or no. [1:41:07] You can say whatever lies you want. [1:41:09] We're not going to participate. [1:41:10] Lies? [1:41:11] Is it a lie? [1:41:12] Are you saying that that is not a fact? [1:41:13] Stop targeting- [1:41:14] Stop falsely attacking me and my loved ones. [1:41:15] I am not- [1:41:16] We have seen multiple people threaten our lives- [1:41:17] Chairman, I'm asking yes or no question. [1:41:18] I'm not making an attack. [1:41:19] I'm not making an attack. [1:41:20] I'm not making an attack. [1:41:21] I'm not making an attack. [1:41:22] I'm not making an attack. [1:41:23] I'm not making an attack. [1:41:24] So I'm not going to participate in it. [1:41:25] Mr. Chairman, I'm asking yes or no questions about activities of the FBI- [1:41:26] I've answered it. [1:41:27] That is a matter of oversight I have a right to do. [1:41:28] I'm not going to- [1:41:29] Normally, I would say, but this seems to be a personal thing to him, and- [1:41:30] and the extent to which- [1:41:31] It is interesting that he is using resources from the FBI in a way that he is not willing [1:41:53] to be transparent and open about. [1:41:54] His agents recommended moving forward to determine whether a New York Times reporter violated [1:42:01] The Department of Justice, though, ended it. They said he could [1:42:04] no longer do this because there was no legal basis, and it looked [1:42:08] like retaliation against this particular reporter. The fact that [1:42:13] he will not discuss it, the fact that he won't be transparent and [1:42:16] accountable, to me, is a further indication of him using FBI [1:42:20] resources for his own personal benefit. Now, he continues to [1:42:27] attack the press. And earlier, when it comes to the New York [1:42:34] Times, the on April 22nd, his borough gave a written statement [1:42:39] to the New York Times. They said that investigations investigators [1:42:45] are concerned about aggressive techniques and recoursing lines. He [1:42:50] again goes on public where he's willing to discuss things on Fox [1:42:53] News. He said to Sean Hannity. No, no, no. There's no investigation [1:42:58] of reporters going on. He seems comfortable discussing things on [1:43:02] Twitter and with Fox News that he's not willing to discuss here. [1:43:07] His bureau investigators were concerned a reporter crossed lines, [1:43:12] and there was no. And then he said there was no absolute. There's [1:43:15] absolutely no investigation. One of those two occasions. He is lying. [1:43:19] Now let's the record reflect that the director is declining to even [1:43:25] discuss this. The record has your bureau's written statement. We have [1:43:30] Hannity's public denial where you are clearly willing to talk about [1:43:34] these matters. We have your May 12 testimony. None of these line up [1:43:40] somewhere. You're lying. The message that every reporter in America [1:43:44] is getting right now is that we have an FBI director that is attacking [1:43:50] the most vaunted of our amendments, which is our first one freedom of [1:43:53] the press. If you write about this director, this FBI will run your name [1:43:59] through government databases. That's not law enforcement. That is [1:44:03] this man before us using a police agency to settle personal grievances [1:44:08] about a story that embarrassed him. And this is not a one time thing. [1:44:14] Mr. Patel, you do it often in July. You did it again. And this time [1:44:19] a federal judge had to stop you in July. The New York Times reported [1:44:25] on security problems with an airplane from Qatar given to the president. [1:44:30] Within two days, you personally went to the White House and spent [1:44:34] the better part of a day directing subpoenas against the reporters [1:44:37] who wrote it, not a leaker. You went after the reporters. Grand jury [1:44:43] subpoenas were served on three New York Times reporters armed FBI agents [1:44:49] went to their homes. You subpoenaed their phone company for their [1:44:53] call records. You subpoenaed the records of one reporters mother. [1:44:59] You get upset when somebody writes a fair story about your girlfriend, [1:45:05] but you're out there using the FBI to go after reporters mom. You [1:45:08] support me to the records of two reporters spouses, not their [1:45:11] girlfriends, but their spouses. This is a fact pattern director of the [1:45:15] police department. The police department said that the police department [1:45:18] was secretly shuttled from the Qatari jet via an airport catering truck [1:45:25] to a smaller Air Force jet on July 8th. The story ran the next day [1:45:31] on July 9th. You demanded those reporters phone records, but you [1:45:37] didn't just go back to this period as an act of further intimidation [1:45:40] of reporters. You went back six months all the way to January 1st [1:45:46] before there was even a story six months before there could even been [1:45:50] a leak. There was no crime in January. The judge admonished you [1:45:53] for this. The judge saw this for what it was an abuse of power. On [1:46:00] July 23rd, a federal judgment. Hadn took this up. He told your [1:46:03] government's lawyer he would throw out every one of those subpoenas. [1:46:08] He raised rather to sanction your lawyers for four years. He told [1:46:12] your government's lawyer he would throw out every one of those subpoenas. [1:46:15] He raised rather to sanction your lawyers for false statements and sworn [1:46:20] applications. Your own lawyers conceded that there was inadvertent errors [1:46:26] end quote in their filings. Director, you talked a lot about your making history. [1:46:33] Has any federal judge in the entire history of the FBI ever asked whether [1:46:40] to sanction the government for what it's support in a subpoena application. [1:46:45] Do you know that? Yes, I do. They haven't. We weren't targeting journalists. [1:46:50] No, we were. Sir, they haven't. You are making history. You are abusing this office. [1:46:54] If you're going to continue to mischaracterize. I'm not characterizing it. [1:46:57] I am stating a fact pattern. Go ahead. Nothing have I said is not supported in [1:47:03] the facts of your agency. You're unwilling to offer transparency here and talk about [1:47:09] things that deal with your girlfriend. But you should talk about your personal [1:47:13] behavior. This isn't a personal vendetta centers on both sides of the aisle should [1:47:18] have to know why are you using FBI resources in ways that benefit yourself [1:47:23] and your family and your girlfriend. But you won't even answer questions. [1:47:28] And yet, like a thug, you're using your agency to go after reporters in a chill to [1:47:34] one of the most sacrosanct ideals of United States of America. They can pass you all [1:47:41] the notes they want. But the truth is clear. Right now, you are stonewalling this [1:47:47] committee for asking simple questions of accountability on how you're using [1:47:52] government resources to go after reporters. And yes, there is a chill out there. [1:47:57] Reporters like you like like Hannity. You give them all the information they [1:48:02] want. You answer their questions. Reporters you don't like you subpoena [1:48:07] their mother's records. Mr director. I have one last pattern of questions. [1:48:13] You announced in your life and your excuse me in your term. You've announced [1:48:21] investigations against a plot on the UFC on the White House law. You've publicly [1:48:26] discussed charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center. You discussed [1:48:32] the 764 network investigation policy. You are very chattery when it comes [1:48:37] to investigations when they are not talked about before this committee. [1:48:42] But here here you stonewall us. So let me put this together. A reporter [1:48:48] wrote about you and your bureau ran her name through records and began an [1:48:53] investigation. Reporters wrote about the president and your bureau went to their [1:48:56] homes and subpoenaed their mothers. And the one investigation you promised [1:49:02] Congress. The one that president said himself should happen is the one I want [1:49:07] to talk about. You said that when the president claimed that there was a [1:49:12] forgery in the Epstein files that the card he sent you promised this committee [1:49:17] and others that you would investigate that forgery that a forged document on a [1:49:23] child's sex trafficker's birthday book you said you would investigate. Has there [1:49:30] been any investigation any witnesses interviewed any names on on what you [1:49:36] promised us you would do when it comes to that birthday book. Before you answer [1:49:41] that question. I said at the opening I give you some time to respond. If you as long as you didn't [1:49:52] talk over people. And I think you've been very reserved in that. So answer his question and then [1:49:59] I'll give you time before I call on Senator Graham. In that testimony before the house where you said [1:50:06] clearly you would launch an investigation. I got your question. He's allowing me to answer it. Yeah. [1:50:11] Answer it please. I am. You're gonna stop. You done. Do you want some. Do you want some time to [1:50:17] Sure. If you give it to me. Go ahead. Sure. The Obama administration subpoenaed [1:50:22] countless reporters did 1200 interviews of reporters in an investigation into reporters. [1:50:28] This administration focuses on the leakers of classified information that endangered the lives of elected officials and [1:50:34] American citizens. We are not targeting reporters at any point in time. We are trying to find out who [1:50:39] in the government. Mr. Chairman. This is still my time. He can answer at the end of my time. [1:50:43] This is still my time. No. He's not. Your time's up. No sir. My time is not up. You allowed [1:50:48] Mike Lee to go two and a half minutes over. But yet a Democratic Senator. You're gonna cut off. [1:50:53] At a previous meeting. I let you go three. Here. As you have other people. I have one more question line of [1:51:00] questioning to give. No. He's so mister that I'll make my concluding remark and you can do [1:51:04] whatever you want sir. My concluding remark is we don't have an FBI director. [1:51:08] We have a lackey here. Okay. Who's using government and frankly he's not even a good [1:51:12] lackey. He's an incompetent lackey. Okay. He's like an 18 year old kid who wants to [1:51:17] join a fraternity that he could never be a member of doing keg stands and chugging [1:51:21] with friends. He's an embarrassment to the agency and wouldn't qualify even to be an FBI agent. [1:51:26] Sir. He won't answer questions for a committee. He insults Democrats here. [1:51:31] And you don't step in. He has a little book by his side that he literally is using to try to [1:51:36] intimidate people in the same way he intimidates reporters. He is a disgrace sir. [1:51:41] And the fact that we are not asking him in fact demanding him to answer the most best basic oversight [1:51:47] questions is a further testimony to what is bad is not just that we have a rogue FBI agent intimidating [1:51:54] reporters. What's bad is that we have Republicans in the Senate that are enabling him to go [1:51:59] without any objective oversight or transparency or accountability. Why do you why do you why [1:52:06] many times in White House. Why do you figure you're something special. Now we've had. I'm not special. [1:52:11] My time has now just Republican. Sir. And we are not balanced in your way. Let's my time has just now [1:52:19] reached what Mike Lee did. And we as a committee have done what you've done before which is ask him [1:52:24] to answer basic questions. He won't even do it in writing. This is a mockery and a sham. We have a rogue [1:52:30] agent intimidating the press violating people's First Amendment rights and doing everything the president has. [1:52:37] You don't show much respect for your chairman. You've gone on now. I have utter respect for you. In fact I have love for you. [1:52:44] And this is why I know this is not who you are. We're we're not holding this witness in objective way to answer [1:52:51] the questions that are given to him by Democratic senators. Yet he insults them time and time again. [1:52:56] What he did to Senator Walsh should make this whole committee stand up and walk out and sanction this man for [1:53:07] speaking to one of my colleagues the way he spoke to them. Even Senator White House who was then sitting in tried to control this [1:53:13] witness who makes everything personal. I have a right to ask questions about how he's spending money on his girlfriend. [1:53:22] And yet he stonewalls me but will run on Fox News and talk about any and all these issues. This is ridiculous. This is a sham. [1:53:30] And what's bad is not the person sitting there who is a mockery to the office he holds. What bad is bad is the people that are enabling him to do so. [1:53:40] You understand Mr. Director why during the Kavanaugh hearings. [1:53:46] I let people talk and talk because it takes longer to shut them up than it does to let them talk. Now you go ahead and say what you wanted to say. [1:53:56] I don't have much to say. This guy called me a thug. It's kind of ironic. He's running for president United States. He just got his 22nd ad campaign next. [1:54:04] Senator Graham. I think Senator Graham sacks. Were you done? [1:54:15] I'm done. Somebody behind me is yelling. [1:54:17] Yeah, brother, I will repeat what you said. You're getting thrown out, but they can't throw me out. [1:54:22] I'm going to hold this man accountable for as long as he's in his job until he gets fired, which he probably will because he's incompetent at his job and continues to do things that merit his removal. Yes, shame on you, sir. [1:54:33] Director Patel, were you done? By the way, violent crime arrests by the FBI in New Jersey are up 75% on top of the historic results we've already delivered for the American people. [1:54:42] Yeah, thanks to the state police and local police officers. Irrespective of the lies that he continues to tell. [1:54:47] Sir, nothing I have said here is a lie. You said your time's up. Are you done or not? [1:54:50] No, are you done or not, sir? You want to go run out to the media and talk to the microphone. [1:54:53] If you want to answer my questions, go to the next person. Go ahead. This is ridiculous. What a mockery you are. [1:54:57] You are the biggest mockery in the United States Senate, and you're sitting next to the ship. [1:55:00] Yeah, well, eight million people in New Jersey don't think so. [1:55:03] Done. At least I didn't get my job the way you got your job, sir. [1:55:05] Are you going to interfere with Senator Graham asking her questions, too? [1:55:09] I certainly will not. [1:55:10] Two as well. [1:55:11] I certainly will not. Are you done now? [1:55:12] I am done. [1:55:13] Are you ready to shut up? [1:55:14] I am done, sir. [1:55:15] Senator Graham. [1:55:16] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director Patel, for being here today and for your continued service to this country. [1:55:24] And hang in there. It's almost over. [1:55:27] I represent the people of South Carolina. And back home, law and order isn't a slogan. It's just common sense. [1:55:35] It's whether our police officers feel back by the federal government. It's whether the fentanyl coming across our southern borders end up in our small towns. [1:55:43] And it's whether South Carolinians and Americans at large feel safe in our communities. [1:55:48] So, director, I want to spend the bulk of my time reiterating and laying out for the record and for the people of South Carolina what the data actually shows since President Trump was sworn in and since you took over the bureau and how it compares to the disaster of the four years before you got here. [1:56:06] The Democrats have focused on negativity. I want to focus on the positives. [1:56:11] Director, you have reported that since January 2025, the FBI has made close to 54,000 violent offender arrest, a 90 percent increase from the previous 18 months. [1:56:23] You've also reported a roughly 20 point drop in the national homicide rate during that same window alongside a 197 percent increase in total arrest on the child safety front. [1:56:36] And this is the one that matters most to parents in South Carolina. You've reported that nearly 11,000 child victims have been located since you took the job and that 5,000 child predators and human traffickers have been arrested. [1:56:51] That's not a talking point, director. That's kids who are at home instead of in danger. [1:56:57] And on the drug front, which hit South Carolina as hard as anywhere, the bureau reported seizing more than 3,200 kilograms of fentanyl since January 2025, on top of capturing 10 of the bureau's most 10 most wanted fugitives. [1:57:12] Mr. Director, I want to highlight something that doesn't get enough credit. [1:57:16] A secure border makes this bureau stronger. When DHS keeps crossings down, it means fewer demands on federal law enforcement across the board. [1:57:27] And that gives the FBI more room to do what it does best. We need to do everything in our power to secure the border and deport criminal illegal aliens so that the FBI can focus on its law enforcement mission. [1:57:40] Some public officials like California Governor Gavin Newsom do not seem to agree. [1:57:45] That's why I am a co-sponsor of the In Sanctuary Cities Act, which would impose criminal penalties on public officials who obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law. [1:57:56] A secure border, a secure interior, and a focused FBI go hand in hand. [1:58:02] Director Patel, I want to focus next on a threat that is harming American families and increasingly more cases taking the lives of our children. [1:58:12] Online sexual exploitation. [1:58:14] I want to start with a network that has received a lot of attention recently from law enforcement and Congress. [1:58:20] The online network known as 764. The FBI has described 764 as a violent nihilistic online group that targets vulnerable young people online and coerces them into committing grotesque violence against themselves or others. [1:58:38] Currently, the FBI is actively investigating more than 450 subjects tied to 764 and similar violent online extremist networks, including active investigations spanning across all 56 field offices. [1:58:55] Just last month, the DOJ announced the conviction of 27 year old Kyle William Spitz, who was sentenced to 77 years in prison for his participation in 764. [1:59:08] What concerns me is that this is not simply a problem happening on some obscure corner of the Internet. [1:59:15] These predators can find children on social media platforms that millions of American kids use every day. [1:59:22] I specifically want to highlight a South Carolina family whose experience illustrates this crisis. [1:59:28] In 2022, 17 year old Gavin Guffey was the victim of an online sextortion scheme that led to him committing suicide. [1:59:37] His father, South Carolina representative Brandon Guffey has turned his family's unimaginable grief into action by passing Gavin's law, which strengthens South Carolina's penalties for sexual extortion, especially involving minor victims. [1:59:53] But the story did not end at the state line. [1:59:56] The FBI and the federal prosecutors continued pursuing Gavin's exploiter and identified a 24 year old Nigerian national in January 2025. [2:00:05] He was extradited to the United States and is facing serious federal charges, including child exploitation resulting in death and cyber stalking resulting in death. [2:00:17] Director Patel, no American family should have to suffer in the way that Brandon Guffey and his family have suffered. [2:00:24] We cannot bring Gavin back, but we can make sure that his death leads to stronger investigations, faster international cooperation, greater accountability for predators and better protections for our children online. [2:00:36] Director of the people of South Carolina want law and order. They care about whether their kids are safe, whether fentanyl is getting harder to find on their streets and whether the men and women wearing a badge have the backing of this government based on what I've just laid out. [2:00:54] I believe the direction that President Trump and you have charted is the right one. And I want to use my remaining time to ask you a couple of specific questions about how we build on it. [2:01:07] So my first question is, do sanctuary state policies make the FBI's job more difficult and more dangerous? And would a bill like the In Sanctuary Cities Act help improve public safety? [2:01:20] Absolutely, Senator. We would need that bill to be able to break through the log jam that's been created by sanctuary city policies who harbor not only just illegal immigrants, but violent offenders, gang bangers, drug traffickers, firearms transporters and even domestic terrorists and also child rapists. [2:01:38] So anything that we can do legislatively to give the FBI more authorities to go in there and root out that evil is something I'll support. [2:01:46] Thank you. Also, from your perspective as FBI director, what do you see is the greatest domestic security threat facing our country? [2:01:55] The mechanism of the threat is the cyber landscape. The greatest single security threat is the perpetration of violence through the online space, be it upon our children, be it upon our institutions of worship, or be it upon our elected leadership like we saw at the UFC 250 event or like we saw in the [2:02:19] Synagogues and Center Klobuchar jurisdiction, but also the predators that are child predators that are using the online space to lure adolescents and toddlers into chat rooms that we can't police and then turning them into sexual assault victims and also exploiting their images at the ages of 10, 12 and 14 for their criminal deviant purposes. [2:02:42] So those are some of the greatest domestic threats and we just need more partnerships at the state and local level to be able to police those. [2:02:50] Thank you. Is there anything Congress isn't giving you the authority or funding to do that would help you keep this pace up? [2:02:58] Well, it's always about funding, Senator, which I appreciate it. So, you know, the FBI hasn't seen a budgetary increase in six years. And we've already accomplished this historic reduction in crime with what we have. But if we had more, we could buy more equipment, modernize our infrastructure even more so than we've already done. And also bring in new people and expand our partnership. So any increase in budget is greatly appreciated. [2:03:21] Okay, thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Patel, I know several of my colleagues have asked questions about the upcoming elections and you've responded to questions about whether there's plans to deploy agents to polling places or not. I'm going to ask a related but different and specific question in the spirit of trying to be constructive and productive here. [2:03:51] The Department of Justice pursuant to a long-standing policy of not interfering in elections refrains from engaging in, quote, this is from your website over my shoulder here, quote, overt criminal investigative measures and matters involving alleged ballot fraud until the election in question has been concluded, its results certified, and all recounts and election contests concluded. [2:04:17] I mean, I raise this concern because it was not that long ago that the FBI seized ballots in Fulton County, Georgia. It was earlier this year, particularly given that the affidavit submitted to the federal court magistrate to justify that seizure was based on unverified intelligence. [2:04:37] Now, granted, this was ballots from a prior election, not a current election. [2:04:42] It did inspire a copycat move in the state of California, my home state, where the sheriff of Riverside County seized 650,000 ballots cast from a prior election. [2:04:52] I want to be encouraged, and folks back home want to feel comforted in, number one, this still being the policy of the FBI, number two, to quote from a letter from Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Kane, to Senator Slocken, in which he says, [2:05:09] The Joint Force has no plans to use such personnel to seize ballots, voting machines, or other election-related material. My question to you is, can you make the same commitment? [2:05:19] Yes. [2:05:20] Thank you. Appreciate that. Clear, concise, and on the record. [2:05:26] My next question, I want to follow up on one of Senator Kennedy's line of question. Well, actually, let me move to a different topic. [2:05:35] A year ago, this committee convened to exercise its oversight responsibility, like we're doing here today, to get answers to critical questions about the FBI's activities under your leadership. [2:05:48] I know other colleagues have reminded you of some of the pledges and statements you made that day, that you're committed to full transparency, to oversight and accountability, and to restore the public's trust in the FBI. [2:06:00] And you made that promise again here today. But as Senator Whitehouse alluded earlier, it's been almost a year, and we still haven't gotten responses, no answers, to our questions for the record that were submitted last year. [2:06:14] So, a two-part question for you. One, when can we expect responses to last year's questions, number one? [2:06:22] And number two, when can we expect answers to questions for the record submitted after today's hearing? [2:06:29] So, the first part, those questions have been answered, and they're supposed to be delivered to you. [2:06:34] Well, they have not been. [2:06:35] Well, they have to go through the Department of Justice and OMB. [2:06:37] So, when can we expect them? [2:06:39] I'll have to contact my colleagues there. [2:06:40] We need an answer as soon as possible, and when can we expect answers to this year's question? [2:06:44] We'll do them. [2:06:45] Can we get them by the end of October? [2:06:47] As fast as we can. [2:06:48] Well, if last year's any indicator, that's clearly not fast, not fast enough, not consistent with your pledge of transparency and accountability and responsiveness. [2:06:59] If I may, the end of October is pretty reasonable, so we can abide by that. [2:07:03] We're talking about last year's. It's been a year. [2:07:05] No, those are done. [2:07:06] But they're not. [2:07:07] I don't know what else to tell you. We've answered them. [2:07:10] Well, how about you deliver them? [2:07:11] I'm not the one that delivers them. The DOJ and OMB do. [2:07:14] Mr. Chapman, let me move on to a different topic. [2:07:16] Now, the AI has been mentioned a few times today. [2:07:21] It's been a hot topic since reporting over the weekend of the developments in the AI space. [2:07:28] First, the prospect of rogue AI agents is obviously top of mind because of the autonomous agents hacking into Hugging Face. [2:07:37] And I imagine it's also top of mind for you, given that Hugging Face apparently reported the cyber attack to the FBI. [2:07:44] Is that correct? [2:07:44] Partially. The rest of that is we can talk about a classified setting. [2:07:50] Okay. But at least partially it's been reported to the FBI. It's on your radar. [2:07:56] So my question is, what steps is the FBI taking to investigate this cyber attack specifically? [2:08:02] That cyber attack specifically is going to be investigated the same way we investigate all cyber attacks of that nature. [2:08:08] What we do is, if it involves a private sector partner, we ask to get on their platform with our cyber action team, our CAT teams, which we deploy readily. [2:08:16] That's step one. The faster we get on, just like a kidnapping situation, the faster we can get to the end result. [2:08:21] Step two is seeing if there was any exfiltration of data and what type of data was exfiltrated. [2:08:27] And step three is kicking off the intruder and securing the network. [2:08:32] So we will do all those things and then we'll trace that back to the individuals, nation state, keyboard people, personnel that were responsible for that attack and also hold them accountable by working with our DOJ partners. [2:08:43] As a follow-up, as a specific policy and technical question, because it seems like we're in a new frontier here. [2:08:50] What protocols or procedures are different, if any, given that these were autonomous, non-human actors that have been accused of committing these crimes? [2:09:02] So the difference is, is someone created them, right? [2:09:07] So for us, the approach is the same. [2:09:09] While we look at it as a, let's just call it an electronic entity, someone made them for the specific deployment. [2:09:17] And just like any other program that we have, if it's for a good lawful use, we're fine. [2:09:21] If it's for an ill-intended unlawful use, we're going to go after the entity and the people that created that system if they intentionally deployed it to cause that result. [2:09:29] So to be clear, for the people watching at home, who is it then that you are investigating or will hold accountable if the information you come across warrants, indictments, charges, et cetera? [2:09:42] Companies, personnel, whoever is responsible. [2:09:45] Okay, not just the systems themselves. [2:09:46] And just out of curiosity, because AI is being utilized in the course of the FBI's work, investigations and otherwise, what safeguards have you put in place to monitor, prevent, or respond to AI agents going rogue within the FBI systems? [2:10:03] So there's a ton. [2:10:04] So we don't just bring in AI and let it run loose. [2:10:07] We take it in as a test use case by case basis, and then we test it on a specific set of data, either at a headquarters component or one specific field office. [2:10:16] Then we get feedback on whether or not that AI tech capabilities and large language models abided by our policy and DOJ mandates in the law, or if it did not. [2:10:26] And based on that analysis, we either deploy it out to the field or we don't. [2:10:30] And so we're going to continue that effort. [2:10:31] Every time an AI system comes in, that's the exact pattern that we execute at the FBI to make sure there's no breaking free, for lack of a better phrase, of AI to run rampant. [2:10:42] Any AI systems that did not act appropriately? [2:10:48] To date of the 140 test cases, use cases that we've brought in under my tenure, no. [2:10:55] Let me now turn to the FBI's role in investigating shootings, and specifically shootings involving ICE and CBP personnel. [2:11:03] Now, standard practice has been under, when a federal law enforcement uses deadly force, there's an independent determination of what happened, and whether that use of force was warranted or not, and whether any federal laws may have been violated. [2:11:19] So this is also a little bit of a follow-up for a question from Senator Klobuchar. [2:11:23] Reports indicate that in July, field offices received guidance to stop investigating confrontations with immigration enforcement officials or agents involved with immigration enforcement. [2:11:37] Yes or no? [2:11:38] Did you or your leadership team instruct field offices to stop investigating excessive use of force by ICE or CBP? [2:11:44] No. [2:11:44] So, can you reiterate for me, for the committee, for the public, what is the current guidance to field offices as it pertains to these types of investigations? [2:11:54] Every single investigation is different, depending on the location, depending on who the officer is. [2:11:59] We have to bring in the lead home agency, if it's one of theirs. [2:12:02] But every incident is investigated? [2:12:04] So, but every incident, to my knowledge, is investigated through the interagency process. [2:12:08] With FBI participation in those investigations? [2:12:10] Yes, and we're always called in. [2:12:12] We're always asked to participate because we have some technical capabilities that other agencies don't. [2:12:15] But are you the lead on these investigations, or are you just there to answer any questions they may have? [2:12:18] That varies on a case-by-case basis. [2:12:20] But you should be the lead on these investigations. [2:12:22] The independence of these investigations is critical for true accountability. [2:12:29] We also need the agencies that employ these agencies. [2:12:32] But they can participate. [2:12:33] I'm talking about who's in the lead here. [2:12:34] Well, that's a determination made at the interagency level on a case-by-case basis. [2:12:38] We don't have a blanket rule. [2:12:39] Can you comment on the status of investigations on the shootings of Juan Sebastián Guerrero or Lorenzo Salgado Araujo or any of the 23 shootings involving ISHR-CBP? [2:12:53] I'll have to get back to you on those because, again, I'd have to go talk to my DHS. [2:12:57] Okay, I know some of these shootings and incidents have been more recent, but some go back months and months and months, some to last year. [2:13:05] Right, especially if they're ongoing. [2:13:06] I definitely wouldn't be able to comment. [2:13:07] So why does it take so long? [2:13:08] Well, because most investigations take long. [2:13:12] Most investigations take months, if not years, depending on the nature of the investigation. [2:13:16] Not always the case. [2:13:17] I didn't set that standard. [2:13:18] Not always the case. [2:13:20] Well, I look forward to asking follow-ups to these questions and additional questions on additional subjects. [2:13:26] You know, questions for the record, which, God, I hope it doesn't take you a year to respond. [2:13:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:13:32] Senator Tillis. [2:13:33] So, Director Patel, welcome to the committee. [2:13:35] It's good to see you. [2:13:37] You too, sir. [2:13:38] If you would, push your mic real up close to your face. [2:13:43] First off, I wanted to thank you for the response, delayed at, dated July 20, on the request, I think, from the chairman here, a letter, May 5th, on the travel. [2:13:56] Your travel patterns, I like the historic perspective as compared to your predecessors. [2:14:03] So I just wanted to thank you for the fulsome response. [2:14:06] And for anybody who had any questions about Director Patel versus some of his predecessors, I think maybe you're doing a much better job of minding that and being proactive. [2:14:14] So thank you for that. [2:14:15] No problem. [2:14:16] And, Mr. Chair, I'm assuming this has been submitted to the record before the response on Director Patel's travel. [2:14:26] Okay. [2:14:28] Then I won't seek consent to add it. [2:14:32] I've got a lot of questions. [2:14:34] I want to start with one. [2:14:35] I think it came up earlier about your hiring standards, the FBI hiring standards. [2:14:39] So I want to give you a few minutes to respond, but tell me why you believe these refinements and hiring standards of actually improving the process and helping promote improving those who are coming into your ranks. [2:14:53] Most importantly, we wanted to target individuals with the represent law enforcement experience, military or state and local law enforcement, if we're talking about the special agent cadre, 1811 cadre. [2:15:02] And having them wait 16 months to go through a pipeline which was marred with bureaucracy and administrative bloat was something we eliminated. [2:15:12] We didn't eliminate the standards. [2:15:13] We actually increased them. [2:15:15] We just took the fact that it shouldn't take an FBI 100 days to respond to an applicant just to respond. [2:15:22] Can you give me a general idea of the experience and the academic accomplishments of the type of people we're looking for? [2:15:30] It varies if it's lab technicians, intel analysts, support staff. [2:15:33] But they're all well-educated, well-trained, experienced people. [2:15:37] With multiple years of work experience before applying to the FBI. [2:15:42] And what are we doing now in terms of trying to compress the cycle for applicant response back from the agency? [2:15:50] What sorts of targets are you setting for that hiring process? [2:15:53] We just, we simply said, look at the internal hiring mechanisms and don't diminish the requirements, but eliminate the administrative bureaucracy. [2:16:07] So we eliminated the wait time periods that just people were waiting around and they might go and get hired by another agency because most people don't have 16 months to get a job. [2:16:16] Well, even worse than that, they may never even go work in government. [2:16:20] They're already highly educated and underpaid for the skill set that they bring to the table. [2:16:25] And I will guarantee you in the business sector that I worked in, if I took 100 days to get back with the top talent, they'd be working for somebody else. [2:16:32] So I think you're doing right by maintaining the standard, but recognizing these are men and women who have, you know, lives to move on with, sometimes education debt to pay off, and we should be crisp. [2:16:45] And what's amazing to me is we all, we always talk about Border Patrol as a classic example of how long it takes to get them, get them on board it, which is one of the reasons we have a hiring problem there. [2:16:56] You're doing exactly what you need to get leaner, but not minimize the standards, but actually hold the agency to a higher standard in hiring practices. [2:17:05] So I appreciate you doing that. [2:17:07] I know that was a question that somebody else raised. [2:17:09] I'm glad you got an opportunity to clarify it. [2:17:12] Have you made, tell me a little bit about Section 702. [2:17:15] I think Senator Lee may have asked a question. [2:17:17] I am absolutely for Section 702. [2:17:19] I've heard you say publicly that it's very, very difficult for you to do your job and keep America safe if you don't have these authorities. [2:17:27] Can you tell me any more work that you've done in trying to improve best practices or take care of some of the legitimate concerns people like Senator Lee has in codifying or seeking support from Congress? [2:17:39] Some of the concerns are absolutely valid, if not all of them. [2:17:42] You know, the FBI was shooting at about an 84% success rate when it came to 702 queries, the biggest issue in the 702 debate. [2:17:49] So we went in there and we eliminated the three strike rule. [2:17:53] If you don't know how to use 702 after your training and you use it improperly, you're gone. [2:17:57] I fired two people for that, just doing that. [2:17:59] On top of that, we only gave lawyers access and oversight to the 702 queries along with the agents, so there's a tandem of it. [2:18:07] But instead of 7,000 people that had access to 702 in the FBI, now it's 3,500. [2:18:13] And for the first time in the FBI's history, our 702 queries, per the FISA court itself, are over 99% compliant. [2:18:19] So those are some of the things we've implemented internally to make sure that we are fully compliant with the statute [2:18:25] and protecting American citizens' rights while maintaining our operational capabilities and tempo. [2:18:33] That's good news. [2:18:34] I worry about lapsing with future directors, or maybe it should be six strikes. [2:18:45] To what extent should we be considering putting together some baseline codification of some of these procedures? [2:18:55] I feel like the more that we know that these practices, I do believe when you make some policy changes, you should put them in place for a while. [2:19:04] If you can't find really any serious negative outcomes, then I think we should have some staying power in codifying it, [2:19:11] because I think it could potentially be a better argument for future Section 702 reauthorizations. [2:19:17] Have you all considered making any recommendations to this committee about after these practices, codifying these so that future directors can help? [2:19:26] So we have. [2:19:26] We've proposed legislation based on our policies. [2:19:30] I've said you should take some of these policies and make them into law. [2:19:34] I've said if someone intentionally abuses 702, if you can believe it, there's no statute on the books to prosecute someone for that. [2:19:41] So I wrote that statute and provided it not just to this committee, but I briefed, I think, 175 members of the House last year in one setting on it, [2:19:49] including multiple briefings in the Senate in front of other committees and your colleagues. [2:19:53] I think some of those things are no-brainers. [2:19:54] I think if you codify the fact that if you intentionally misuse the query system itself, [2:20:00] there's always the chance with a lot of these names and selectors that the spellings are a little odd for them. [2:20:06] So if you misspell something, okay, we can deal with that. [2:20:09] But if you intentionally misuse it, then you should be prosecuted, and we need that statute. [2:20:14] That's good to hear, and that's something that I'll speak with my staff and the committee about. [2:20:19] I think that's smart. [2:20:20] It'll lend more credibility to the process. [2:20:25] I wouldn't expect you to know what the TRACE Act is, [2:20:28] but we've passed out of the House something that allows us to collect additional data [2:20:33] for missing persons, particularly on federal land. [2:20:37] I think Native American population. [2:20:39] Can I get a commitment from you to review the bill [2:20:43] and determine whether or not we can get a position that could be hopefully a positive? [2:20:49] I know when people say it's just adding a data field, I worked in this space. [2:20:53] I know it's more complicated than that. [2:20:55] But can we get some advice from our position from the agency [2:21:00] as to whether or not they think it would be helpful? [2:21:03] Because we have a lot of missing persons on federal land. [2:21:06] We just simply need to know what we don't know today, [2:21:10] get your commitment to review it, [2:21:11] and see if the agency is prepared to take a position on it. [2:21:14] We're fully committed to that because this bureau, under my leadership, [2:21:17] has had the largest Indian country campaign in the bureau's history. [2:21:22] We've had the most agents in In Town and Isles dedicated to that system, [2:21:25] dedicated to that mission, along with the longest durational campaign for MMIP. [2:21:30] And so we need all the help we can get there and the resources. [2:21:33] If you could report back to us and give us any assistance on the bill [2:21:36] that came out of the House, it's fairly straightforward. [2:21:39] We will. [2:21:39] And then maybe that will give us some momentum to try and get this done [2:21:42] before the end of this Congress. [2:21:44] Sure thing. [2:21:45] That would be very helpful. [2:21:48] In my remaining time, because I don't want to hold up my colleagues [2:21:51] who have been here for a while, [2:21:53] can you just briefly, in the minute or so that's left, [2:21:56] give me an idea of what your priorities are for stopping any practices [2:22:03] that you think are not necessarily helpful starting in the FBI [2:22:07] as you're going through and just trying to become lean or starting any new – [2:22:13] so stopping anything you think that you may be looking at, [2:22:15] saying we don't need this, we need to repurpose it. [2:22:17] Are there some new initiatives that's going to make the agency [2:22:20] even stronger or better than it's become under your leadership? [2:22:23] There's a lot. [2:22:25] We've implemented over 150 policy changes. [2:22:28] We've reduced the DIOG or Operational Guidebook for Field Agents by 40%. [2:22:32] The core is just eliminate bureaucracy and duplicative efforts [2:22:35] so multiple personnel aren't doing the same thing just to get to yes [2:22:38] without providing a detriment to our operational workflow. [2:22:43] We've done things at the lab like eliminate the 1.8 million DNA backlog. [2:22:47] That was federally required years ago. [2:22:49] No one ever bothered to fix it, so we brought in AI and tech to fix it, [2:22:52] and now we have the most expansive CODIS database the FBI has ever had [2:22:56] to track down criminals. [2:22:57] And so we're just doing things like that with AI. [2:23:01] On every front, we're looking to eliminate bureaucracy [2:23:03] on our task force officer pipeline. [2:23:06] It was a 14-month wait just to become a TFO. [2:23:08] Same problem as onboarding new hires. [2:23:10] We eliminated the internal bureaucracy and paperwork. [2:23:13] And we put the focus – this is really the thesis at the end of the day. [2:23:17] The focus is in the field. [2:23:18] The focus is not in Washington, D.C. [2:23:20] When I got to the seat, one-third of the FBI's entire 36,000-person workforce [2:23:24] worked in the National Capital Region. [2:23:26] No more. [2:23:27] We pushed out over 1,500 FBI personnel permanent to the field in the first year, [2:23:31] an additional 500 this year, and more to come next year. [2:23:34] And we're going to keep doing that so agents and intel analysts [2:23:36] and program staff are in the field where they belong, [2:23:39] collecting intelligence and driving operations, [2:23:41] and we've handed over power to our SACs and not giving directives from headquarters. [2:23:46] Thank you. [2:23:47] Thank you. [2:23:47] Senator Schiaff. [2:23:48] Mr. Patel, there were at least two major investigations of President Trump [2:23:55] in the previous Justice Department. [2:23:58] One that investigated his role in the violent attack on the Capitol [2:24:02] and the incitement of that attack. [2:24:04] Another investigation that investigated his purloining [2:24:09] of hundreds of classified documents, [2:24:13] their storage in his place at Mar-a-Lago, [2:24:18] efforts to obstruct the investigation. [2:24:21] Those two investigations were properly predicated. [2:24:24] Those investigations resulted in grand juries bringing returning indictments, [2:24:31] charging the president numerous times with serious felony offenses. [2:24:34] I have questions for you today about the agents who worked on those investigations. [2:24:39] Let me first start with a simple numeric question. [2:24:43] How many FBI agents were used in the investigation [2:24:49] of the Mar-a-Lago documents case against the president? [2:24:52] About how many? [2:24:53] I have no idea. [2:24:53] I wasn't here then. [2:24:55] Would it have been dozens? [2:24:57] I don't know. [2:24:58] You'd have to ask the prior administration. [2:25:00] Well, a lot of those people were fired under your directorship, were they not? [2:25:04] I don't think a lot of them, but a lot of them retired, [2:25:07] and some of the ones that weaponized law enforcement were terminated, [2:25:10] as they always will be. [2:25:11] So, can you pull the microphone close? [2:25:13] We're having trouble hearing you. [2:25:14] You might want to pull the whole thing closer to you. [2:25:18] So, are you just right today that you don't know if they were fired, [2:25:23] or maybe some of them were fired, or many were fired? [2:25:25] What's your testimony? [2:25:26] How many of them were fired? [2:25:26] My testimony is, I don't know the personnel actions [2:25:29] that were taken by the prior administration and the personnel actions. [2:25:32] No, I'm talking about your administration. [2:25:33] I'm getting there. [2:25:34] The personnel actions that were taken by me are simply as follows. [2:25:37] Nobody at the FBI, as they've committed to, is allowed to participate in the weaponization [2:25:41] of law enforcement. [2:25:42] That's not my question. [2:25:44] How many of the agents who worked on the Mar-a-Lago investigation of Donald Trump, [2:25:48] how many of them were fired by the FBI? [2:25:51] I don't know. [2:25:52] Are any of them still working for the FBI? [2:25:54] I don't have that number. [2:25:55] That's not my responsibility. [2:25:56] Well, I'm not asking for a number now. [2:25:57] Are any of the agents who worked on the Mar-a-Lago investigation of the president [2:26:01] still employed at the FBI? [2:26:04] I don't believe so. [2:26:04] Most of them left. [2:26:06] Okay, so you don't believe any of the agents who worked on that investigation [2:26:12] are still at the FBI? [2:26:13] I can't stop them from retiring. [2:26:15] Is it your testimony that they're not at the FBI because they retired, [2:26:19] not because they were fired? [2:26:20] My understanding is the overwhelming majority of those agents and FBI personnel retired. [2:26:24] Well, let me ask you this. [2:26:27] Todd Blanche at a CPAC conference says, [2:26:31] and when it comes to the FBI, Director Patel has cleaned house there, too. [2:26:37] There isn't a single man or woman with a gun, federal agent still in that organization, [2:26:44] that had anything to do with the prosecution of President Trump. [2:26:48] So the Attorney General says you cleaned house at the FBI. [2:26:51] I did. [2:26:53] Was he right? [2:26:53] Was he truthful when he said there's not a single agent at the FBI [2:26:56] who worked on the Mar-a-Lago investigation still employed by the FBI? [2:27:00] The Attorney General is always truthful, so I believe his statement. [2:27:02] Okay, so they're all gone. [2:27:05] Is your testimony today that most of those agents are no longer with the FBI [2:27:09] because they decided suddenly to retire? [2:27:11] Yeah. [2:27:12] They weren't fired in whole or in part because they worked on that investigation? [2:27:16] The bulk of the individuals that worked on those investigations left shortly thereafter. [2:27:21] And they left voluntarily? [2:27:23] In the prior administration. [2:27:25] I'm talking about under your watch, Director Patel. [2:27:28] They left before I got there. [2:27:29] There's really nothing I can do. [2:27:31] So it's your testimony that most of them voluntarily left the Bureau. [2:27:34] They weren't fired? [2:27:35] Most of them, yeah. [2:27:37] And is the same true of the agents who investigated the President's involvement in January 6th? [2:27:42] How many, well, first of all, how many agents would you say that would be? [2:27:45] Would it be dozens or hundreds of agents? [2:27:48] I don't know. [2:27:49] You'd have to ask the prior administration. [2:27:50] They were in charge of them. [2:27:51] You have no idea whether it is over 100 agents? [2:27:55] No, my focus is not going back in time. [2:27:57] My focus is crushing violent crime and defending the homeland and receive historic results. [2:28:01] Well, my question is, were those agents, as Todd Blanche indicated, also purged from the FBI under your watch [2:28:11] because they had worked on the January 6th investigation? [2:28:14] The FBI has one specific and simple standard. [2:28:18] If you don't meet our high standards, that's not my question. [2:28:20] I'm getting there. [2:28:21] If you don't meet those standards, you don't get to work at the FBI. [2:28:26] Take a little less time to get there, if you would. [2:28:27] Were they purged because they worked on the January 6th investigation of the President? [2:28:32] There was no purging. [2:28:33] And there are individuals who worked on a whole host of investigations. [2:28:36] Were any of those agents, were any of those agents fired? [2:28:40] Many retired. [2:28:41] Excuse me, excuse me, let me finish the question. [2:28:44] Go ahead. [2:28:45] Were any of the agents who worked on the Mar-a-Lago investigation or the January 6th investigation, [2:28:51] were any of those agents fired in whole or in part because they worked on those investigations? [2:28:58] For the simple fact of working on those investigations, no. [2:29:01] If they weaponized law enforcement, yes. [2:29:03] So all of the agents who just happened to work on those investigations and were fired, [2:29:12] is it your testimony that's because they were engaged in some other malfeasance other than simply being assigned to those two cases? [2:29:20] There's an entire inspection division at the FBI that looked at the totality of not just these agents and employees, [2:29:25] but everybody on a constant basis, and they make recommendations to leadership. [2:29:27] But my question is very specific, Mr. Patel. [2:29:30] Answering your question. [2:29:30] Are you, well, I haven't heard the answer, so I'm going to try again. [2:29:34] Go ahead. [2:29:35] Of all the probably hundreds of agents who worked on those two investigations of the president, [2:29:41] those hundreds of agents, maybe thousands, that your attorney general says are gone from the FBI, [2:29:49] is it your testimony that none of them were fired solely for working on those investigations? [2:29:57] All FBI personnel, those matters or others, are held to the same standard. [2:30:02] You don't meet it, you don't get to work at the FBI. [2:30:04] So it's your testimony that none of them were fired in whole or in part because they worked on those investigations? [2:30:10] I've answered the question. [2:30:12] Is that answer a yes? [2:30:13] I've answered the question. [2:30:15] I don't think you have. [2:30:16] But I can understand why you wouldn't want to. [2:30:19] The FBI is being sued for wrongful termination. [2:30:22] And I will remind you, Director, because you probably need reminding, [2:30:27] that while this Congress is not going to investigate the wrongful termination of potentially hundreds of agents [2:30:33] for working on properly predicated investigations, the next Congress will. [2:30:39] And you have an obligation as FBI Director to ensure that none of the personnel files, [2:30:45] none of the emails, none of the voicemails, none of the text messages, [2:30:49] are destroyed. [2:30:51] You will preserve those records, will you not? [2:30:54] We preserve all records. [2:30:56] We're not the ones that deleted records. [2:30:57] We will hold you to that. [2:30:58] The ones that deleted records are the prior administration. [2:31:00] Let me ask you another question. [2:31:04] I want to read you a statement that you made about the press. [2:31:08] This was in 2024. [2:31:12] When you said that the mainstream media was, quote, [2:31:14] the most powerful enemy that the United States has ever seen. [2:31:19] Do you stand by that? [2:31:20] Your colleagues put that on full display here today. [2:31:23] Do you stand by that? [2:31:24] I'm answering the question. [2:31:26] Your colleagues put that on full display by hacking around the same lies and personal pieces of attacks. [2:31:30] No, no, no. [2:31:30] This is your comment. [2:31:32] And that's what makes the majority of the mainstream media. [2:31:34] Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. [2:31:35] I don't want to have to go over my time as other colleagues have. [2:31:38] I've answered the question. [2:31:39] So if you could answer the question, do you stand by this statement? [2:31:41] That's a great picture. [2:31:42] You should post it. [2:31:44] Do you stand by your statement? [2:31:45] I always do. [2:31:46] So is it your view then that the media is a greater enemy than Iran? [2:31:55] That's not what I said. [2:31:56] I said the media that participates in lying like you do and the baseless attacks on me and my personnel and my loved ones is the most harmful institution to the United States of America because you don't want to tell the truth. [2:32:08] By this mainstream media that you're accusing of lying, you're talking about the New York Times? [2:32:12] Are they part of the enemy? [2:32:13] I mean, I'm talking about the ones that you said are still looking for. [2:32:15] Are you talking about the New York Times? [2:32:17] Aren't you and them the ones still looking for Russia collusion? [2:32:19] Excuse me. [2:32:19] Did you find Russia collusion? [2:32:21] Is it in that envelope that you held up? [2:32:22] We need an extra minute and maybe continuing as long as he. [2:32:26] Or what about those illegal FISA warrants when we and I were on the House Select Committee together? [2:32:29] I'll stipulate for the record all the insults he wants to make later, but I don't want to have to go over my time, but I will have to. [2:32:36] I'm allowed to answer the question. [2:32:38] So if he doesn't want me to answer it, we could just answer it. [2:32:39] Mr. Patel, let me ask you specifically about some of your attacks on the media. [2:32:47] Mr. Booker tried to get an answer from you, a very simple answer, about the reporter who wrote an article about potential misuse of an FBI SWAT team by yourself. [2:32:55] Didn't happen. [2:32:56] Total lie. [2:32:58] And what he asked you, so let me repeat it because you didn't answer his question. [2:33:02] You're going to repeat a lie, so I'm not going to answer it. [2:33:04] Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. [2:33:05] We're going to have to extend time the more he does this. [2:33:07] We don't have to extend anything. [2:33:08] I'm trying to ask my question, Mr. Chairman. [2:33:10] Could I ask both of you, he can ask his question, then like I said. [2:33:16] Mr. Chairman, I've made my decorum through this entire hearing. [2:33:19] His colleagues have called me a thug, a liar, baselessly attacked my loved ones, continuing to jeopardize the safety of me and mine, all the while to advance their political narrative. [2:33:29] He's doing the same. [2:33:30] I would appreciate it if you concluded this hearing because this guy has no interest in oversight. [2:33:34] Mr. Chairman, that's been about two minutes of filibuster. [2:33:37] So reclaiming my time. [2:33:40] Here's what I want to do. [2:33:42] You ask your question and then when he's done, you will have time to respond. [2:33:48] Okay. [2:33:49] It's time's up. [2:33:49] So my question, Mr. Chairman, is following this New York Times article that alleged that you had abused the FBI SWAT team. [2:34:02] I just told you it's a lie. [2:34:04] Excuse me. [2:34:04] So the basic term of the question is a lie. [2:34:06] I haven't been able to finish my question. [2:34:07] Did you or did you not or did anyone else at the FBI query a federal database regarding the New York Times reporter who wrote that story? [2:34:21] I did not. [2:34:22] Not to my knowledge. [2:34:23] Did anyone at the FBI? [2:34:25] I have no idea. [2:34:26] I don't monitor everything they do. [2:34:28] And let me also ask you a similar question about an article. [2:34:34] The FBI director is missing in action. [2:34:36] This was an article in The Atlantic. [2:34:38] Another total lie, which is why I'm soon. [2:34:40] Mr. Chairman, I'm still trying to ask a question. [2:34:42] He's out of time. [2:34:43] Are we done? [2:34:43] Okay. [2:34:44] Mr. Chairman. [2:34:45] Hey, what I'd like to have you do is you ask your questions. [2:34:48] I'm trying. [2:34:49] And stop and I want him to respond to you. [2:34:51] That is what I'm doing, Mr. Chairman. [2:34:53] Okay. [2:34:54] So my question is this and I'll address this through you to the director. [2:34:58] My question is about the reporter, Sarah Fitzpatrick, who wrote this article, The FBI Director is Missing in Action. [2:35:05] After this article came out, were any FBI resources used to look into this reporter in any way? [2:35:16] No. [2:35:17] Okay. [2:35:17] The question is answered. [2:35:19] Now he's done. [2:35:20] You take your time if you want it right now before I go to the senator from Florida. [2:35:26] So just a comment on the FBI director being missing in action. [2:35:32] And let's see if the mainstream media reports this. [2:35:35] My predecessors took an average of 33 days off a year. [2:35:39] I've taken half that. [2:35:41] I've taken four days off this year. [2:35:43] My predecessors, like me, and every other agency head of national security are mandated to fly on government aircraft. [2:35:48] They took nearly twice as many personal trips as I ever have. [2:35:53] My predecessors utilized Reagan National as their own lily pad for takeoff and landing, costing the American taxpayer $3.5 million. [2:36:01] I changed that to codify using Andrews Air Force Base and government airfields so the American taxpayer isn't on the hook for their excursions. [2:36:10] My travel is the least of any FBI director in history when it comes to personal travel. [2:36:16] My engagements and business days working are the highest of any FBI director. [2:36:21] We've got the calendars. [2:36:23] We'll show them to you. [2:36:24] But the fact remains that I am the most present, hardest working FBI director. [2:36:30] And this, this sheet shows it. [2:36:33] When you reduce the murder rate 20 points in this country, that is making America safer than it's ever been before. [2:36:38] When 20% less kids are dying from drug overdoses because you seized enough fentanyl to kill a quarter million Americans, that is making America safer than it's ever been before. [2:36:47] When you arrest and capture the top 10 most wanted fugitives in 18 months, all of them, that is making America more safer than before. [2:36:55] When you capture six of the most wanted fraudsters in the world who fleeced Americans of $2 billion on four separate continents, that's making America the most safe it's ever been. [2:37:03] And when you find 11,000 child victims and locate them, that's making America the most safe it's ever been. [2:37:08] And when you arrest 54,000 violent felons, the FBI alone, a 90% increase in just 18 months, that's making America safe, more safe than it's ever been before, including in every single state of the state. [2:37:19] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director, for being here today. [2:37:25] I think I'm one of the newest members of the United States Senate, and I'm continuously amazed when I see performance theater on the other side of the aisle. [2:37:39] And it generally happens when there's not enough material to attack performance metrics. [2:37:45] I think you listed out the way you've been attacked today, your character, they've called you a thug, a liar, attacked people that you love. [2:37:54] It's hard to spend their time talking about the fact from 2024 to 2025, the violent crime rate fell almost 10%, which is the largest single year decline in our nation's history. [2:38:08] That's right. [2:38:09] The largest decline in one single year in our nation's history. [2:38:16] So not a lot to run on when I think probably the entire other side of the aisle is calculating how to do that. [2:38:26] So they've got to come up with personal attacks against you. [2:38:29] So I appreciate you staying focused on addressing what you have accomplished over the last year and a half to make America more safe. [2:38:38] And I want to commend the Trump administration for staying focused on those deliverables, because that's what the American people are demanding after an administration who seemed to just throw up their hands and then sometimes purposefully dismantle the security of the people in the United States. [2:39:00] So thank you for staying focused on what you've accomplished and when you just rattled off those numbers, I mean, when you were talking about pushing agents back out into the field, and this is something you and I talked about when you started at the helm about pushing agents back in the field, doing what we hire them to do. [2:39:19] Do you credit that decision with not just the stat of the largest single year decline in our nation's history of violent crime falling, but do you also credit that decision to an 80% increase in criminal arrests and a 90% increase in violent crime arrests? [2:39:41] This isn't rocket science. [2:39:42] If you've got a 30-year workforce in Washington, D.C., how are they going to be taking down criminals across the country? [2:39:48] That's why we put them in the field. [2:39:49] That's why our field leadership's in charge. [2:39:51] That's why we're going to continue putting them in the field, and that's why we're going to put intelligence in the field and not have headquarters component twist intelligence for false political narratives. [2:40:00] And anyone at the FBI that does that or weaponizes it in any way, shape, or form will not work at this FBI. [2:40:04] This FBI has returned historic results. [2:40:07] The mission remains the same. [2:40:08] The mission comes first of crushing violent crime and defending the homeland. [2:40:11] These baseless personal attacks, they can say whatever they want about me, but as you've highlighted, that's something that happens when you are fully over the target, [2:40:19] and they've got absolutely nothing else to talk to you about. [2:40:20] Well, it's my guess that a lot of the attacks against you had little to do about you and a lot to do with clips they'd like to see on TV later on tonight. [2:40:29] Earlier this year, and I really thought this was very smart and ingenuitive, and I want to commend you. [2:40:39] Some of the decisions you've made to increase these arrest stats, to make sure that we're going after violent crime, strengthening our communities, [2:40:48] these have been decisions that are a little out of the box, and I want to commend you on that, [2:40:51] because this year you launched the FBI's first-ever Most Wanted Fraudsters List to help locate and apprehend fugitives wanted for stealing from American taxpayers. [2:41:01] And I do think Americans are tired of putting on their TV at night or opening up their newspaper and realizing, [2:41:07] oh, just another $100 million has just been siphoned off to criminals or improper payments, [2:41:13] or another billion out the door that they just worked two shifts or maybe overtime to earn and then pay taxes on. [2:41:19] I want to commend you for thinking outside the box. [2:41:24] I do believe there's an entire fraud economy out there that is being uncovered by patriots that work for you, [2:41:32] patriots that are independent like Nick Shirley that are just showing up at these places and demanding [2:41:37] because he's a taxpayer and a citizen and he wants to know where our money's going. [2:41:41] So I think it's important for the American people to understand the sheer scale and sophistication of fraud schemes that you're confronting. [2:41:48] I loved this idea. [2:41:51] It sets it up almost equal to the 10 most wanted on the FBI's list. [2:41:56] Can you profile for the American people that are watching this right now, [2:42:00] the one to understand how big this fraud economy is out there? [2:42:05] What kind of people are taking advantage of them? [2:42:08] Tell us some of the guys that were on that list and that you've already apprehended. [2:42:12] So it's basically the worst of the worst. [2:42:16] The entire enterprise is probably $240 billion in fraud and that's probably low. [2:42:20] There's two types of fraud. [2:42:22] There's the health care, Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, PPP fraud that the president's task force is crushing. [2:42:27] We were just in Kansas City yesterday where we announced the capture of our sixth most wanted fraudster in Vietnam. [2:42:32] And what we're doing is we're finding individuals who make literally hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars [2:42:38] and then flee to Africa and Southeast Asia and other faraway locations thinking they'll never be apprehended. [2:42:44] The six that we've caught on the most wanted fraudsters list have been on the run for 5,000 days collectively [2:42:48] and we brought them all back to be prosecuted and we're looking to seize all those funds. [2:42:53] The second type of fraud is a scam center fraud, Senator. [2:42:56] And they are looking to basically call, email, text you and your constituents across this country [2:43:03] and take you for everything you've got, your retirement, your life savings, your kids' college education, what have you. [2:43:09] And what we've done is at the FBI is launched Operation Blackout, [2:43:13] which is the only law enforcement-led initiative in the entire government [2:43:16] that focused on scam centers in the cross-border region of Southeast Asia and Burma, Thailand. [2:43:21] We stood up a symposium there. [2:43:23] We went and raided four compounds there. [2:43:24] We raided another in the Middle East. [2:43:26] We see $17 billion in illicit gotten gains out of these scam center fraud schemes. [2:43:32] We freed thousands of traffic workers and made hundreds of arrests. [2:43:35] And most importantly, these places, what people don't realize, they're actual cities. [2:43:39] We went in there with our partners and bulldozed them to end the fraud. [2:43:43] So one of the things that I saw as attorney general in Florida and certainly as a prosecutor [2:43:48] is our seniors are often taken advantage of frequently by these scam artists. [2:43:54] And one of the challenges in law enforcement is you will have federal law enforcement [2:43:58] and then in the state system, they will try and work on these as well. [2:44:02] They might get to a point where they realize the bad actors are overseas. [2:44:06] They need the help from the federal government. [2:44:07] And that was always a challenge. [2:44:09] But building expertise on the state level, having that complementary force from the federal [2:44:15] government was effective, I found, when I set up a senior protection team or even a statewide [2:44:20] cyber fraud task force. [2:44:23] So one of the things I've proposed as a senator is to set up a similar organization, and I [2:44:32] propose Stop Scams Against Seniors Act, which would allow federal, local, state law enforcement [2:44:38] to come together. [2:44:39] It would bolster these teams so that when the state reached its limit, couldn't get to someone [2:44:43] like you were just talking about, you would come in. [2:44:45] They could work together and educate one another how best to go after those. [2:44:49] Is that a good idea? [2:44:50] Is that essential right now? [2:44:52] Because are we seeing cyber scams at a magnitude that we have never seen? [2:44:55] Do it and do it yesterday. [2:44:57] Thank you. [2:44:58] I've proposed it. [2:45:00] So anybody that you talk to, I think it would be go just from my own experience and the success [2:45:04] that we saw in Florida. [2:45:06] I think it would really go a long way to helping other states. [2:45:08] And certainly we're still combating this in Florida. [2:45:11] So thank you for committing your support. [2:45:13] And I will make sure my colleagues know about that. [2:45:16] I also want to turn to fentanyl. [2:45:19] Thank you for making this your number one of your number one priorities. [2:45:23] People didn't realize this, but the number one killer of Americans, working-age Americans, [2:45:28] is fentanyl. [2:45:29] And synthetic fentanyl, I commend the administration for shutting the border. [2:45:35] So much of that was flowing over our wide open southern border. [2:45:38] But we're still seeing this synthetic fentanyl being pressed into pills. [2:45:45] Many times our children, I can tell you as a mother, I talk to families all the time who [2:45:50] have lost children that have taken pills thinking it's some other type of substance, but it's [2:45:57] actually deadly lethal fentanyl. [2:45:59] Thank you for your attention on this. [2:46:01] I want to commend you for seeing drastic decreases in our overdoses. [2:46:08] In Florida, we just saw a 46% drop in fentanyl-related deaths. [2:46:12] But I know in 2025, nationwide, seizures of fentanyl increased by more than 30%. [2:46:19] And fentanyl overdose deaths fell by 20%. [2:46:22] And I know that's due to, in large part, to the hard work of our men and women that wear [2:46:27] a badge. [2:46:27] I have also put forward the Press Act, which would make those pill presses illegal. [2:46:35] 100%. [2:46:35] Got to do it. [2:46:36] So I have your commitment. [2:46:37] You'll help me get that passed, and that's important. [2:46:39] Yep. [2:46:40] Okay. [2:46:40] Well, I think it's important that we shined a light on some of the wins that have been [2:46:46] delivered for the safety of Americans over the last year and a half. [2:46:51] Thank you for being here today. [2:46:52] Thank you for testifying to that. [2:46:54] And thank you for committing to help us shore up our laws to make sure we can go further [2:46:59] and deliver safety for the American people. [2:47:01] Thank you. [2:47:01] Thank you, Senator. [2:47:02] Hope you get those bills passed. [2:47:03] Before I call on Senator Hawley, I think you're next, I want to put a statement in reaction [2:47:13] to some of the things we've heard. [2:47:15] My colleagues have said that the cases against Trump were properly predicated. [2:47:21] And by the book, my oversight has shown that cases were defective and were not normal prosecutions [2:47:30] and investigations. [2:47:34] And we're politically driven. [2:47:38] And we're going to get to follow up on this soon with the Jack Smith hearing that's coming up. [2:47:46] And then one other thing, committee Democrats claim the firing of certain Department of Justice [2:47:54] and FBI officials is retribution. [2:47:57] But Democrats willingly turned a blind eye to Biden administration's weaponization against whistleblowers. [2:48:07] These whistleblowers suffered retaliation at the hands of many of these fired officials. [2:48:13] One whistleblower said, quote, ensuring that they no longer work at the FBI isn't retribution, [2:48:22] it's responsible leadership, end of quote. [2:48:25] Another whistleblower who happened to be a registered Democrat spoke out against abuses [2:48:31] in the security clearance process committed by FBI senior leaders under Biden. [2:48:39] During the Biden administration, whistleblowers had their security deterrences suspended [2:48:46] and was placed on unpaid leave in retaliation. [2:48:50] We've gotten justice for some of those people, hopefully all of them. [2:48:57] I've been provided details to the committee in the past, [2:49:01] but many other fired personnel who ruined their lives of many of whistleblowers. [2:49:10] I'm going to leave the committee to the two Republicans that are remaining here, [2:49:16] and I'm going to take off, but I want to thank you not only for appearing for this, [2:49:21] but putting up with what you had to put up with. [2:49:24] And I'm sorry I couldn't control some of them more than I already did, but I explained that. [2:49:30] I appreciate you, Mr. Chairman. [2:49:32] Thank you. [2:49:32] Senator Hawley. [2:49:35] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [2:49:37] Director Patel, good to see you. [2:49:38] You too, sir. [2:49:39] I want to say congratulations on the tremendous work on crime, confronting violent crime and crime of all sorts across the country, [2:49:46] and particularly in Missouri. [2:49:47] I think criminal prosecutions in Missouri are at all-time highs. [2:49:49] I know they are in the western district of the state, probably so in the eastern district as well. [2:49:54] And when I look at the overall numbers, you know, it's just really something. [2:49:59] Criminal arrests up 80 percent, violent crime arrests up 90 percent, 11,000 child victims have been located, identified, [2:50:07] and their perpetrators or their persecutors locked up. [2:50:11] I mean, that's really tremendous. [2:50:13] So congratulations on all of that, and I hope that you'll pass that along to the great men and women of the Bureau [2:50:18] who work under your command and under your leadership. [2:50:21] I want to ask you about a crime of a different kind, but one that's very important in my state. [2:50:26] My state has laws that prohibit the use of chemical abortion drugs in the state. [2:50:34] Despite that fact, there are companies, huge companies, many of them based overseas or offshore, [2:50:41] that are actively coaching customers and would-be consumers on how to use the federal mail [2:50:47] and other federal instrumentalities to avoid state law. [2:50:51] And in particular, the Danco company, which is a-all they do is make chemical abortion drugs. [2:50:56] That's all they do. [2:50:57] They're in the Cayman Islands, so their books are-are off-site. [2:51:01] They are not available to federal investigators. [2:51:04] They're funded-we don't even know who their funders are. [2:51:06] We know that it includes George Soros and a bunch of other far-left liberals, [2:51:09] including folks who have been advocates of population control. [2:51:11] This company, which is responsible for most of the abortion drugs made in the United States, [2:51:17] is actively coaching people on how to use the federal mails to evade state law. [2:51:23] Now, that's a-that's a federal crime. [2:51:25] You cannot use federal instrumentalities to evade and violate state laws. [2:51:30] Here's my question to you. [2:51:32] Will the Bureau look into these actors, Danco in particular, [2:51:37] but any other offshore or foreign corporation [2:51:40] that is trying to use federal instrumentalities, [2:51:42] whether it's the mails or other means of communication and commerce, [2:51:46] in order to evade or to violate state and federal law? [2:51:51] Without naming any of the companies, I'm not saying we're not already, [2:51:56] but any use of the mail system is a federal crime that falls to the FBI to investigate, [2:52:02] especially in conjunction with a violation of a state law that's already on the book. [2:52:05] So we're committed to that. [2:52:07] Good. Thank you very much. [2:52:08] That is welcome news for the state of Missouri and should be welcome news all over the country [2:52:11] because the truth is, and I'm sure you know this, [2:52:13] when it comes to these particular abortion drugs, and the companies certainly know it, [2:52:17] they send one in ten women who use them to the hospital with life-threatening conditions. [2:52:22] The companies lie about that. [2:52:24] They don't disclose it. [2:52:25] They don't follow state law. [2:52:26] They don't follow federal law. [2:52:28] And now to see them coaching people on how to use the federal mail to violate the law so that what? [2:52:34] So that they can make billions of dollars. [2:52:35] And by the way, keep it all off books in the Caymans. [2:52:37] It's absolutely outrageous. [2:52:39] Here's the other thing I want to ask you about in conjunction with that. [2:52:42] Sadly, because these companies are violating the law the way they are, [2:52:46] we see many abusers ordering these abortion drugs themselves, posing as women, [2:52:51] but ordering them themselves and then lacing a woman's drink or her food with the drug [2:52:56] in order to induce an abortion, to carry out a physical assault, [2:53:01] to carry out the most heinous invasion of her bodily autonomy, [2:53:05] to use a phrase my Democrat colleagues love to use but don't seem to care about in this context. [2:53:09] We see multiple people doing this. [2:53:11] And in fact, just last week, there was a tragic story out of Ohio [2:53:14] where a doctor was sentenced to six months in jail, two years probation, [2:53:17] after he admitted to secretly giving his girlfriend without her consent an abortion-inducing drug. [2:53:24] There have been 12 prosecutions in, I think, as many states in the last two years. [2:53:29] My question to you is, will the FBI, where there is a federal nexus here, [2:53:33] again, where the mails are used for this purpose illegally, [2:53:36] where there's another federal nexus, whether it's a violation of the Violence Against Women Act, [2:53:42] the Travel Act, other federal anti-fraud statutes, [2:53:44] will the FBI do all it can to make sure that abusers of this kind are being held accountable? [2:53:50] Yes, sir. [2:53:51] Fantastic. [2:53:52] Let me ask you about a different kind of crime that is something entirely new in this age, [2:53:57] and that is crimes that are committed by AI agents. [2:54:01] I'm sure you know this last July, we learned that agents from OpenAI, one of these big companies, [2:54:08] 1,200 of their AI agents escaped a testing environment and committed an assault, an attack, [2:54:14] an online attack, on a platform known as Hugging Face. [2:54:18] We later learned that OpenAI agents were behind a May attack on a different service called RubyGems, [2:54:24] and in a few weeks after that, we learned that AI agents executed a fully autonomous ransomware attack. [2:54:32] We're seeing this ramp up. [2:54:33] This is, as far as I know, you correct me if I'm wrong, I mean, this is all new territory, [2:54:37] where you have these non-human actors, yet they are owned by and directed by corporations. [2:54:43] My question to you is, what's the role here for the Bureau? [2:54:47] How do you wrap your head around these kind of crimes? [2:54:50] And what kind of resources do you need to get up to speed and do your job in this rapidly evolving situation? [2:54:56] This is a great question. [2:54:57] It's literally the new frontier, and nobody's really talking about it, so thank you. [2:55:02] So a couple things. [2:55:03] The president has issued his AI directive on what the government can and can't use, [2:55:07] and that's the right first step because you don't want 77 different large language models [2:55:11] and distillation to occur and then have these programs available to adversaries and criminal actors. [2:55:18] And so that was step one. [2:55:19] It was a great initiative. [2:55:20] The next step is we, specifically the Bureau, use all these AI capabilities under test case models [2:55:25] to make sure they are cooperating and falling under line in other federal statutes. [2:55:30] What we need to do on a resource basis is go after the people that created these models that are going rogue, [2:55:42] let's call it, for the specific purpose and with the intention to commit a criminal act. [2:55:49] That's going to be sort of the immediate next frontier. [2:55:52] We can't be punishing people if they created something lawfully and then a criminal took it [2:55:57] and changed it and then dispersed it. [2:55:59] We can punish that criminal. [2:56:00] But we need to have a whole-of-government approach, but to look at all these large language models, [2:56:04] we need an intake of a lot of money. [2:56:07] So give me a sense of what we need to be doing, what Congress needs to be doing to help you get equipped to do your job. [2:56:13] Do we need to create a new division? [2:56:14] Do we need to give you more staff? [2:56:16] I mean, what's the—I think where we're looking here, this is, as you said, a new frontier, [2:56:20] and we're looking at this could be the future, unfortunately, the future of much online crime in this country. [2:56:25] What do we need to do to get you the resources that you need? [2:56:28] I don't think we need a new division. [2:56:29] I think we have the technical capabilities to do it at the FBI's cyber division, the best in the world. [2:56:35] What we need is the ability to buy tech. [2:56:37] We don't have the money to buy tech. [2:56:39] The FBI's budget is like half the size of TSA. [2:56:42] What we need is funding to specifically go out there. [2:56:45] Thanks to the relationship that President Trump has established, I'm able to call all these company CEOs right away, [2:56:49] and every single one of them has complied with our requests and worked with us on law enforcement matters. [2:56:54] But that's sort of soft power. [2:56:56] What we need is federal statute—excuse me, federal funding—to go out there and buy the creations of these companies [2:57:04] and use them for law enforcement purposes. [2:57:06] That's what's missing, and that's a big buy. [2:57:08] Do you need additional statutory authority to conduct investigations? [2:57:13] Do you have all the statutory authority that you need? [2:57:15] I think we have all the statutory authority that we need. [2:57:17] You know, let me just ask you, just picking your brain on this, [2:57:20] I mean, what happens when you have, as happened with the hugging face incidents, I understand it, [2:57:25] that the autonomous AI agents committed these crimes, got broke into the hugging face platform, [2:57:32] stole the data that they stole, but then they altered the evidentiary record. [2:57:36] Now, investigators, prosecutors—I'm a former prosecutor—you know, we're used to trying to uncover the evidentiary record, [2:57:42] reassemble the evidentiary record. [2:57:43] What we're not used to is having a criminal perpetrator that is able to rewrite the evidentiary record in real time, [2:57:50] which these AI agents are fully capable of doing. [2:57:54] Is there additional—what do you need to be able to attack the problem, [2:57:59] attack the situation when you have this kind of capability by these agents? [2:58:04] What you need is for the industry to come in fully with government on these large language models. [2:58:10] And the process that these folks are taking advantage of is distillation. [2:58:14] Basically, that's tech speak for we grab a large language model that's out there in the ether, [2:58:20] and we mess with it outside of the parameters it was created for, [2:58:24] unbeknownst to the company that created it, [2:58:26] and then dump it into an ecosystem for criminal purposes. [2:58:29] And that's where the tech buys come in. [2:58:30] We need these tech companies who created it to—they're not just going to give us this material for free. [2:58:37] That's just the reality of it. [2:58:38] We need to be able to go there and say, [2:58:39] OK, I'm going to contract with you and work on this specific model and then work on its defenses. [2:58:44] And when it goes rogue, because you discover it went rogue, [2:58:46] just like any of their cyber intrusion, ransomware attack, or what have you, [2:58:49] it's the same exact approach. [2:58:51] We go out there with them, get on their ecosystems, and immediately shut that enterprise down. [2:58:56] Very good. [2:58:57] Well, I'll just say this in conclusion. [2:58:58] As it relates to these tech companies, I see that over the weekend, [2:59:01] some of the tech CEOs were saying that they really feel that in order to confront these mounting dangers, [2:59:06] they need an exemption from this nation's antitrust laws. [2:59:09] That's it. [2:59:10] And I'd just like to say, from my point of view, and for the record, [2:59:13] I want to be real clear on this, absolutely not. [2:59:16] There is no world in which I will consent to giving the most powerful companies in the history of the world, [2:59:21] a small group of three or four of them, antitrust exemptions from our laws, [2:59:24] so that they can, what, collude together? [2:59:27] I mean, absolutely no way that that is happening. [2:59:30] Thank you for the work that you're doing, Director. [2:59:32] Thank you, sir. [2:59:34] And I actually want to chime in. [2:59:36] Senator Hawley and I don't always see eye to eye on AI, [2:59:39] but I will say the last 30 seconds of what he said, [2:59:42] I agree with every syllable of every word of what he just said. [2:59:46] And to watch AI CEOs saying, we're about to destroy the world, [2:59:52] so give us control of the government so we can lock in our monopoly status [2:59:57] and prevent any innovators from challenging us is just lunacy. [3:00:02] And by the way, if you're about to destroy the world, how about don't? [3:00:05] How about stop? [3:00:07] So it's good to see some common ground. [3:00:11] All right. [3:00:13] And I'm not going to make you comment on that. [3:00:14] Welcome, and I am the last in what I'm sure has been a joyful litany. [3:00:24] I want to talk about a tale of two FBIs, [3:00:29] one that targeted Republican senators and President Trump [3:00:32] and became a political operation, [3:00:36] and the other that targets terrorists and criminals. [3:00:42] The American people have seen both. [3:00:44] Let's consider where the FBI was under Democrats and Joe Biden. [3:00:48] Director Patel, you did not inherit an FBI enjoying widespread public confidence. [3:00:55] And in fact, Gallup found in 2024, [3:00:59] the percentage of Americans rating the FBI positively fell to just 41%. [3:01:05] Now, there's a reason for that, [3:01:12] which is the FBI was doing a terrible job [3:01:15] and was refusing to perform the functions that it is assigned to perform. [3:01:20] According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, [3:01:25] Americans suffered nearly 20 million violent victimizations [3:01:30] between 2022 and 2024. [3:01:32] Is that correct? [3:01:33] Yes, sir. [3:01:34] And in 2024, a violent crime occurred every 25.9 seconds. [3:01:41] Is that right? [3:01:42] Yes, sir. [3:01:43] And a murder every 31.1 minutes, correct? [3:01:48] Yes, sir. [3:01:48] Now, not only that, during the Biden administration, [3:01:54] we had a wide open southern border. [3:01:57] There were almost 11 million encounters at the southwest border. [3:02:00] Is that correct? [3:02:00] Yes, sir. [3:02:02] Approximately 2 million illegal aliens were known to have entered the country, [3:02:05] but were not apprehended what are called gotaways. [3:02:08] Is that correct? [3:02:09] Yes. [3:02:11] Fentanyl was the leading cause of death for Americans [3:02:14] between the ages of 18 and 45. [3:02:16] Is that right? [3:02:17] Yep. [3:02:17] Violent cartels like MS-13 and the Sinalona cartel [3:02:21] expanded their operations inside of the United States. [3:02:25] Is that right? [3:02:26] Yes, sir. [3:02:28] But instead of fighting cartels, [3:02:30] instead of fighting drug dealers, [3:02:31] instead of fighting human traffickers, [3:02:33] instead of fighting murderers, [3:02:34] instead of fighting child rapists, [3:02:36] instead of fighting vicious predators, [3:02:41] the Democrats' FBI had a different target in mind, [3:02:43] and that was the political opposition. [3:02:45] That was Republicans. [3:02:46] FBI Director Chris Wray, along with DOJ leadership, [3:02:53] all personally approved the opening of Operation Arctic Frost. [3:02:57] Is that correct? [3:02:58] Yes. [3:03:00] Instead of focusing on violent criminals, [3:03:04] Biden, DOJ, and FBI simply wanted to ensure Democrats stayed in power. [3:03:10] Not only did they target their political opposition, [3:03:14] the investigation expanded to involve nearly 200 subpoenas [3:03:17] that targeted over 400 Republican-aligned groups and individuals. [3:03:23] Is that right? [3:03:23] Yes, sir. [3:03:25] And on top of that, the FBI obtained, without our knowledge, [3:03:29] the cell phone data of more than 20 percent of the Republicans in the Senate, [3:03:34] including me, including the White House Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, [3:03:39] and including you, Director Patel. [3:03:40] Is that right? [3:03:41] Yes. [3:03:41] In just four days, in June of 2022, [3:03:48] the Arctic Frost team spent roughly $16,000 in taxpayer-funded travel on Arctic Frost. [3:03:53] Is that right? [3:03:54] Yep. [3:03:57] Now, in 2021, the gun owners of America discovered a secret FBI program called Nix Monitoring, [3:04:09] used to track firearms purchases of Americans who are legally eligible to buy a gun, [3:04:13] but merely suspected of a crime. [3:04:15] Is that right? [3:04:16] Yes. [3:04:16] So, while DOJ and FBI is focused on their political enemies, [3:04:23] they were ignoring violent crime, and that violent crime, tragically, had a human cost. [3:04:32] Yep. [3:04:32] Real Americans. [3:04:34] I've spoken their names before. [3:04:37] Jocelyn Nungary in my hometown of Houston. [3:04:40] Laken Riley. [3:04:41] Rachel Morin. [3:04:44] They were daughters. [3:04:46] They were students. [3:04:47] They were mothers. [3:04:50] Brutally murdered by criminal, illegal aliens who should not have been in the country. [3:04:53] That's what a Democrat-run FBI and DOJ looks like. [3:05:00] All right, let's contrast it, because we actually have nearly two years of stark contrast. [3:05:07] Director Patel, the American people are safer today than they were 21 months ago. [3:05:10] Isn't that correct? [3:05:11] 100 percent. [3:05:13] Since President Trump took office, the FBI has arrested over 31,000 violent gang members, [3:05:20] a 30 percent increase. [3:05:21] Is that right? [3:05:21] Yep. [3:05:22] 31,000 gangbangers are gone. [3:05:23] The FBI has disrupted or dismantled approximately 2,700 criminal gangs, a 365 percent increase. [3:05:32] Is that right? [3:05:33] Yes, sir. [3:05:35] In 2025, the United States saw the greatest recorded year-to-year drop in violent crime [3:05:40] and murder rates of all time. [3:05:42] Is that right? [3:05:43] Yes, it is. [3:05:44] Homicides across America's largest cities fell by over 18 percent. [3:05:50] Is that right? [3:05:51] Yes, sir. [3:05:51] Robberies fell 19 percent. [3:05:54] Aggravated assaults fell over 7 percent. [3:05:56] Is that right? [3:05:57] Yes, sir. [3:05:59] And there have been 54,000 violent crime arrests over the last 18 months, a 90 percent increase. [3:06:08] Is that correct? [3:06:09] Yes, sir, by the FBI. [3:06:11] All right, let's talk drugs. [3:06:12] The FBI launched Operation Raptor in May of 2025 to target drug traffickers using the dark [3:06:22] web to sell fentanyl and other narcotics. [3:06:24] Is that right? [3:06:24] Yes, it is. [3:06:26] Your agents have seized more than 3,200 kilograms of fentanyl. [3:06:31] Is that right? [3:06:31] Yep. [3:06:33] That dosage could kill 247 million Americans. [3:06:40] Not could, would. [3:06:42] Your operation potentially saved millions of lives. [3:06:46] Is that right? [3:06:46] Yes, sir. [3:06:47] The FBI also made protecting America's children one of its very highest priorities. [3:06:54] Since the beginning of this administration, the FBI has located approximately 11,081 child [3:07:01] victims, a 21 percent increase. [3:07:03] Is that right? [3:07:04] Yes, it is. [3:07:05] The FBI has arrested more than 5,000 child predators and human traffickers, a 13 percent [3:07:12] increase. [3:07:13] Is that right? [3:07:13] Yes, sir. [3:07:13] Those numbers can become abstract, but let's put faces to the FBI's success. [3:07:23] Director Patel, some of the most dangerous fugitives in America, had been running from [3:07:29] justice for years, many during the Biden administration. [3:07:31] Is that right? [3:07:32] Yes, sir. [3:07:33] Samuel Ramirez Jr. was wanted for allegedly murdering two women in Washington State in [3:07:38] 2023. [3:07:39] He remained a fugitive for nearly three years. [3:07:43] Director Patel, under your leadership, the FBI put him on the 10 most wanted list on March [3:07:48] 10th of this year, and you caught him an hour and 13 minutes later. [3:07:54] Is that correct? [3:07:54] That's right. [3:07:55] Yes, sir. [3:07:57] Gregory Henderson Jr. had been a federal fugitive for nearly three years. [3:08:02] The FBI put him on the 10 most wanted list on August 11th, correct? [3:08:05] Yes, sir. [3:08:05] The next day, FBI agents already had him in custody. [3:08:09] Is that right? [3:08:11] Director Patel, as of yesterday, your public record was nine captures from the FBI's 10 [3:08:16] most wanted list. [3:08:17] But you stated today, now you have captured all 10. [3:08:21] The 10th one was just captured in Venezuela, pursuant to a large-scale jackpotting fraud [3:08:25] scheme, and we rolled them up down there, and they're on their way back here. [3:08:29] 10 of 10. [3:08:31] What the FBI, under Biden, could not do in years, under your leadership, the FBI has been [3:08:39] able to do in days. [3:08:41] 18 months. [3:08:44] Director Patel, you also created a new watch list in response to the horrific accounts [3:08:48] of fraud in states like Minnesota, the FBI's most wanted fraudsters. [3:08:52] Is that right? [3:08:52] Yes, sir. [3:08:54] This poster reflects five captures, but overnight, your team brought in a sixth. [3:09:00] Is that right? [3:09:01] Yes, sir. [3:09:02] We caught a most wanted fraudster who'd been on the run since 2023 in Vietnam for bilking [3:09:07] Medicaid for over $100 million. [3:09:09] Their fraud schemes collectively totaled over $2 billion, correct? [3:09:15] Yes. [3:09:15] This is money stolen from taxpayers, from seniors, from children's programs, from pandemic relief [3:09:21] meant to keep American businesses afloat. [3:09:25] Let's take, for example, Somali immigrant Saeed Abdullahi Arag as part of the larger scourge [3:09:34] of Somali scammers. [3:09:35] He used a small Minneapolis grocery store as a front to steal more than $4.2 million from [3:09:45] taxpayers. [3:09:46] Is that right? [3:09:46] Yes, sir. [3:09:47] He lied to the government that he was feeding hungry children during the COVID pandemic. [3:09:52] Is that right? [3:09:52] That's right. [3:09:54] But instead of feeding children, Arag wasted the taxpayer money on luxury goods from Louis [3:09:59] Vuitton and Burberry and fled the country with arrest. [3:10:02] Is that right? [3:10:03] That's correct. [3:10:05] Arag was charged and at large during the Biden years. [3:10:09] But after you put him on the most wanted list, the FBI arrested him in just six days, correct? [3:10:14] That's right. [3:10:14] That's the tale of two FBI's, one that lets a fraudster run free for years and one that [3:10:23] runs him down and arrests him in six days. [3:10:26] Director Patel, finally, the one other area I want to highlight is the FBI's fight against [3:10:31] radical Islamic terror that you're leading. [3:10:34] Earlier this year, I sent a letter to the Bureau raising concerns about the Council on [3:10:39] American Islamic Relations or CARE and its ties to the Holy Land Foundation, the largest [3:10:47] terrorism financing case in American history. [3:10:50] This is the letter I sent. [3:10:53] Director Patel, are you familiar with that 2008 conviction in which the Holy Land Foundation [3:10:59] and its leaders were found guilty of funneling more than $12 million to Hamas terrorists? [3:11:05] I am. [3:11:07] And CARE was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in that very case, correct? [3:11:13] Yes. [3:11:15] Director Patel, can you assure this committee that the FBI is taking a very hard look at [3:11:22] organizations with documented ties to terror financing, especially radical Islamic terror [3:11:28] financing? [3:11:29] A hundred percent, all day. [3:11:30] And I believe the administration should designate CARE. [3:11:39] They're simply an unindicted co-conspirator. [3:11:41] They have been designated by my home state of Texas as a terrorist organization. [3:11:46] And I am urging the administration to do the same. [3:11:51] Focusing on threats and targeting them is the best way to keep America safe. [3:11:56] I want to say finally thank you for your service. [3:12:00] Thank you for leading tens of thousands of principled men and women at the FBI and bringing [3:12:07] them back to their core function. [3:12:09] The FBI is not meant to be a political enforcement body. [3:12:12] It's not meant to favor one partisan group over another. [3:12:16] It was not meant to be the DNC's action team to target the political opposition. [3:12:23] The FBI should be locking violent criminals up and protecting Americans. [3:12:27] Under your leadership, that's what the FBI is doing. [3:12:31] Thank you for that leadership. [3:12:32] Your family and my family are safer because of it. [3:12:35] Thank you, Senator. [3:12:38] With that, that concludes this hearing. [3:12:42] The hearing will remain open. [3:12:43] The hearing record will remain open for one week. [3:12:46] And with that, the hearing is adjourned.