Nine former FBI employees who worked on the classified documents investigation of President Donald Trump have filed suit against the bureau, FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Todd Blanche, and the Department of Justice, alleging they were unlawfully terminated as an act of political retribution. The 70-page complaint was filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, according to the Washington Examiner and CBS News.
The plaintiffs — identified by CBS News as former special agents, intelligence analysts, and staff operation specialists — were fired over the course of two days in February 2026. They had worked on Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Trump's retention of classified records after his first term, a case that was dismissed in 2024 when a federal judge ruled Smith's appointment unlawful.
According to the lawsuit, the terminations "did not follow any internal investigation or disciplinary process within the FBI," and the plaintiffs "were not given any notice, a hearing, or an opportunity to appeal." The suit alleges the firings were "unlawful" and intended "only to satisfy the President's personal vendetta."
The case names FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Todd Blanche as defendants. Patel, the plaintiffs allege, claimed to rely solely upon "Article II" of the Constitution to justify the terminations, per the lawsuit. They are seeking reinstatement.
The complaint offers a detailed timeline. According to the Washington Examiner, Special Agent Miles Starr — working in a unit called the "Director's Advisory Team" — demanded urgent access to the "Plasmic Echo" case file, the code name for the classified documents investigation, on Feb. 23. That demand reportedly came after video of Patel chugging a beer and "flinging alcohol around" the U.S. men's hockey team's locker room at the Winter Olympics in Milan, Italy, began circulating widely online and in news coverage. The file reportedly contained the names of agents who had worked the investigation. The plaintiffs were fired in the days that followed.
Each plaintiff received a termination letter signed by Patel, according to the suit, which falsely claimed they had exercised "poor judgment and a lack of impartiality in carrying out their duties, leading to the political weaponization of the government." Patel later told Congress they were fired for cause following internal investigations — claims the lawsuit states are not true.
The nine plaintiffs — Jennifer Bacon, Zach Feldman, Gilbert Granados, Catherine Herrera, Harrison Kaufman, Jeremy Linton, Erin Matanic, Danielle Ray, and Rachel Vaccaro — collectively hold "over a century of experience and service to the FBI," the suit says. Among the matters they worked on were the Boston Marathon bombing investigation and the probe into the attempted assassination of Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. The suit also notes the group was involved in "ongoing and sensitive counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations" at the time of their firings, which occurred just as the United States and Israel were set to begin military strikes against Iran.
The Justice Department and FBI did not immediately respond to requests for comment from CBS News.
The lawsuit is the latest in a growing number of actions brought by former FBI personnel who were terminated after working on matters that displeased Trump and his allies. Axios flagged the development in a post on X, linking to coverage of the suit. The case will now proceed through the federal courts in Washington, where it will test how far the administration's Article II removal authority extends into the bureau's career ranks.
Our Take
Let's be clear about what this lawsuit actually represents. For years, a faction of the FBI treated the bureau as an instrument of partisan warfare — and the American people watched it happen. The raid on Mar-a-Lago. The weaponization of the justice system against a former president and current candidate. The agents and analysts who participated in those operations now want to claim they were merely doing their jobs. Perhaps some were clocking in and following orders. That is a fair argument to make. But it is an argument for a courtroom, not a shield against accountability — and it is telling that the same people who insisted we trust the process now call it unlawful when the process turns on them. The Constitution does not promise federal employees permanent employment, and a president who ran on dismantling the administrative state has every right to clean house. If these nine have proof they were singled out contrary to law, let them present it. But do not expect patriots who watched the FBI raid a president's home over a records dispute to shed many tears over a lawsuit from the agents who carried it out. The real question is why people who allegedly lacked impartiality were ever in positions of such trust to begin with.
