Fired FBI Agents Sue Bondi and Patel After Explosive ‘Arctic Frost’ Probe Implicates Trump

In a significant legal development, two special agents involved in the “Arctic Frost” investigation, which culminated in the indictment of former President Donald Trump on January 6, have filed a lawsuit against Director Kash Patel and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. They claim their dismissals were unconstitutional and amounted to “improper acts of political retribution.”

The Department of Justice, and specifically the FBI, have faced a plethora of lawsuits since Trump’s inauguration, largely due to a series of dismissals attributed to agents’ involvement in investigations related to him. These lawsuits also extend to actions such as the agents’ participation in a protest following George Floyd’s death. In this latest suit, the two agents, referred to as John Doe 1 and 2, who collectively boast nearly three decades of experience in handling major cases, allege that their terminations were based solely on their roles in the Arctic Frost investigation from November 2022 to June 2023. This period overlapped with the tenure of special counsel Jack Smith and contributed to the indictment of Trump, the lawsuit claims.

According to the plaintiffs, Director Patel, Attorney General Bondi, and other Trump allies perceived the agents as politically antagonistic to the former president due to their involvement with the Arctic Frost probe. This investigation, they argue, unearthed evidence that led to Trump’s indictment by a federal grand jury.

The agents further assert that their dismissals were pretextual and mirror each other, as they were both accused of “exercising poor judgment and a lack of impartiality,” allegedly turning the government into a political tool. Their firing followed closely on the heels of Republican lawmakers publicly questioning Smith about the Arctic Frost investigation.

Significantly, the lawsuit points out that there was no internal investigation, no prior notice, and no hearing before their dismissals. The agents were neither shown any evidence justifying their terminations nor given a chance to appeal, according to the court documents.

Doe 1 alleged that he was about to take his two kids — “already in costume” — trick-or-treating when he got called to a meeting an hour’s drive away that could not be ignored.

“This is it? Nothing can be done?” the plaintiff asked.

“It is what it is,” Washington Field Office Special Agent in Charge Paul Reid Davis answered, according the suit.

Three days later, John Doe 2, aware of Doe 1’s fate, said he received a call that he understood would be to initiate his firing — which U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro was allegedly “sorry” about and tried to prevent.

The agent had been working a “highly sensitive public corruption case” when he was told on Nov. 3 that “you are going to be terminated,” but the firing didn’t happen until the next day, the lawsuit said. That was because someone “had called on [his] behalf,” and that intercessor was Pirro, the filing claimed. The reprieve did not last and the agent was likewise “summarily dismissed.”

“[Assistant Director in Charge Darren] Cox confirmed to John Doe 2 that, the prior day, there had been an intercession on his behalf by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, which was why John Doe 2 was initially spared. Cox said Pirro had called him a second time, that day, and had asked him to relay the message that she was sorry for this process and appreciated all the work John Doe 2 had done,” the complaint went on.

Both plaintiffs recounted difficulties finding new employment, with one unidentified regulatory organization CEO declining to extend an offer to John Doe 1, described as the “sole breadwinner for his household” and two “young children,” based on the “optics” of his ouster. In addition, they understand the firings to be a “bar” on employment in any executive branch job.

In addition to Fifth Amendment due process claims, the plaintiffs alleged the firings violated the First Amendment as “improper acts of political retribution,” as evidenced by Patel’s own “defamatory speech” online.

“In the course of unlawfully terminating Plaintiffs’ respective employment without due process of law, Defendants—primarily through Patel—publicly connected the termination actions to allegations that the terminated Arctic Frost agents had been ‘weaponizing’ the FBI. This false and defamatory public smear impugned the professional reputation of all publicly identified fired Arctic Frost agents, including John Doe 1, suggesting they were something other than faithful and apolitical law enforcement personnel,” the suit concluded. “This public reputational smear has caused not only the loss of John Doe 1’s government employment but further harmed his present and future employment prospects. In the months following Plaintiffs’ unlawful terminations, Patel has continued to engage in such defamatory speech, publicly describing the fired Arctic Frost agents as ‘corrupt’ and compounding the reputational harm suffered by John Doe 1.”

Read the full filing here.