Fired FBI Agents Sue Bondi and Kash Patel After Trump’s ‘Arctic Frost’ Probe Controversy

In a twist stemming from the “Arctic Frost” investigation into former President Donald Trump, two special agents have filed a lawsuit against Director Kash Patel and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. The agents claim their dismissals were unconstitutional and amounted to “political retribution” following the probe that led to Trump’s indictment concerning the events of January 6.

Since Trump’s presidency began, both the Department of Justice and the FBI have faced multiple legal challenges. These lawsuits often relate to the dismissal of agents for various reasons, including their involvement in investigations or their participation in protests, such as the kneeling during the George Floyd demonstrations. In this latest case, the unnamed agents, referred to as John Doe 1 and 2, collectively bring nearly three decades of experience to the table. They allege that their termination was directly linked to their roles in the Arctic Frost investigation from November 2022 to June 2023, which coincided with special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment and ultimately contributed to Trump’s indictment.

According to the plaintiffs, the firings were perceived as politically motivated. They argue that Patel, Bondi, and Trump, along with others who supported the dismissals, viewed the agents as politically opposed due to their association with Arctic Frost. The operation’s findings reportedly implicated Trump in criminal activities, leading to his federal grand jury indictment.

The lawsuit describes the dismissals as “pretextual,” suggesting that both agents were accused of “poor judgment and a lack of impartiality,” resulting in what was deemed a politicization of government duties. Their departures followed increased scrutiny by Republican lawmakers questioning Smith about the Arctic Frost investigation.

The agents claim that they were dismissed without any internal investigation, notification, or hearing. Furthermore, they were not presented with any evidence to justify their termination, nor were they given a chance to appeal the decision, as outlined in the lawsuit.

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.