Once seen as ‘conservative,’ FBI now faces attacks from the GOP
For decades, the FBI was socially and politically conservative. Agents – virtually all men, wearing dark suits, white shirts, and ties – chased communists and spied on civil rights leaders. Directors were mostly Republicans or on good terms with the GOP.
Today, the FBI’s world has been flipped upside down. Many GOP lawmakers are attacking the bureau as, in their view, a tool of Democrats. They criticize its investigation into former President Donald Trump and Russia, its efforts to rein in right-wing extremist groups, and its electronic surveillance mistakes, among other things.
Why We Wrote This
Trust in the FBI has been plummeting among Republicans during the Trump era, as voters increasingly see institutions – including law enforcement – as being weaponized for political purposes.
Over the past few years, the FBI’s reputation has cratered among Republicans. According to Pew Research Center data, 53% of GOP voters now view the bureau unfavorably.
The FBI has already instituted some reforms in response to the criticism it has received. But some say more needs to be done to rebuild public trust.
“It’s just very dangerous for a government or country to have people believe that law enforcement is fundamentally political, and that one party is going to be advantaged and [the] other disadvantaged,” says Stewart Baker, former general counsel of the National Security Agency. “It’s something to be avoided at all costs.”
For decades under J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI was socially and politically conservative. Agents – virtually all men, many of them Southerners from Mr. Hoover’s alma mater, George Washington University – wore dark suits, white shirts, and ties. At work, coats were not to be removed.
The bureau loosened up over the years. But it retained its buttoned-down aura. Agents chased communists and spied on civil rights leaders. Directors were not all Republicans, but they mostly remained on good terms with the GOP.
Today, the FBI’s world has been flipped upside down. Seven years into the Republican Party’s era of Donald Trump, many GOP lawmakers are attacking the bureau as, in their view, a tool of Democrats. Where once conservatives defended the FBI as the embodiment of American law and order, they now criticize its investigation into Mr. Trump and Russia, its efforts to rein in right-wing extremist groups, and its electronic surveillance mistakes, among other things.
Why We Wrote This
Trust in the FBI has been plummeting among Republicans during the Trump era, as voters increasingly see institutions – including law enforcement – as being weaponized for political purposes.
Some House Republicans have gone so far as to call for the FBI’s defunding. At a contentious House hearing last week, multiple GOP lawmakers peppered FBI Director Christopher Wray with questions about whether bureau agents or sources were present at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, apparently reflecting a theory, for which there is little hard evidence, that the FBI helped stir up the insurrection.
“I’m sure a lot of Democrats will say, ‘That’s just a conspiracy theory, and it’s wrong, so we can dismiss it,’” says Stewart Baker, the former general counsel of the National Security Agency. “But you can’t dismiss a large portion of the body politic that believes those things about your law enforcement and national security agencies.”
Drop in trust among Republicans
For much of its history, the FBI has been one of the nation’s most popular government agencies. Self-promotion has bolstered this: Ghost-written books published under Mr. Hoover’s name were big bestsellers in the 1950s. An authorized TV series based on bureau case files and starring actor Efrem Zimbalist Jr., “The F.B.I.,” aimed to draw in younger viewers in the mid-1960s.
The FBI’s status was dented by revelations in the 1970s about abusive programs such as COINTELPRO, which aimed to directly disrupt and divert perceived leftist organizations, including civil rights groups and anti-war protestors. But over decades, the agency regained voter esteem. As recently as 2010, 71% of Republicans and Republican-leaners and 68% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners had a favorable opinion of the FBI, according to Pew Research Center data. Today, a slight majority of all voters still say they have a positive view of the bureau, according to Pew.
But in the past few years, the FBI’s reputation has cratered among Republicans. The most recent Pew numbers show that 53% of GOP voters now view the bureau unfavorably. Other polls show similar results.
At the heart of the decline are perceptions that the bureau has unfairly targeted Mr. Trump. Half of all GOP respondents to a Pennsylvania State University poll taken last November agreed with the statement “Many FBI agents do not enforce the law fairly, because they are biased against former President Trump and his agenda.”
When GOP lawmakers berate FBI officials at hearings for perceived malfeasance, they are saying things many of their constituents already believe.
Some former FBI agents also agree with the negative assessments.
“Over the course of my 12-plus years ... the FBI’s trajectory has transformed,” said Nicole Parker, a former special agent, at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Feb. 9. “The FBI became politically weaponized, starting from the top in Washington and trickling down to the field offices.”
Ms. Parker cited as evidence the May report by special counsel John Durham on the origins of the FBI investigation into allegations linking Mr. Trump to Russia. Mr. Durham was highly critical of the bureau’s handling of that case, saying agents had suffered from “confirmation bias” in which they discounted exculpatory information, rushed to open a full investigation instead of a preliminary probe, and made serious errors when applying for a wiretap on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
But Mr. Durham’s report did not uncover the “crime of the century,” as Mr. Trump had insisted it would. It did not refute the underlying findings of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, which revealed multiple contacts between Trump campaign aides and the Russians. Mr. Durham charged no major figures with any crimes. The two minor criminal cases he did bring both ended in acquittals.
Another former agent called the criticism of the FBI’s handling of the Trump affair a “narrative that’s being sold” by a “handful” of former agents.
“But it’s not true,” said the former agent, who did not want to be quoted by name since their employer had not given them permission to speak to the press.
Charges of politicization
FBI Director Wray’s appearance last Wednesday before the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee exemplified the current tensions between the GOP and the bureau.
Republican lawmakers peppered Mr. Wray with questions about whether he was protecting President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden from prosecution on serious charges related to the younger Mr. Biden’s foreign business dealings. Mr. Wray said emphatically that he was not.
Some Republicans complained about the FBI’s part in monitoring disinformation and true threats on social media and wondered whether the bureau had purposefully suppressed news reports about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Mr. Wray denied this.
In his opening statement, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan referred to the FBI search of Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home for classified documents as a “raid.” Mr. Wray said that agents had probable cause to search the resort under a court-appointed warrant and tried not to attract undue attention to themselves.
Mr. Wray also flatly rejected the suggestions of some lawmakers that the FBI somehow stoked the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol as “ludicrous.” The FBI chief, a registered Republican appointed to his post by Mr. Trump, also told one GOP questioner, “The idea that I’m biased against conservatives seems somewhat insane to me, given my own personal background.”
The bureau and Mr. Wray were in a tough spot in that hearing, says former agent Michael Clark, who specialized in white-collar corruption cases during a 23-year career with the bureau.
Members of Congress certainly have a right to do what they feel they need to do, says Mr. Clark, now a professor at the University of New Haven in West Haven, Connecticut. But when they start asking the FBI chief about current investigations – such as the Hunter Biden case – it puts him in an impossible situation, he says, because he is unable to talk about ongoing bureau work.
“A lot of politicians like to go on camera and get their soundbite by embarrassing people like Chris Wray, and make it sound like [the witness] is holding back,” Mr. Clark says.
That said, some agents in the field believed that in 2016 top bureau agents such as then-director James Comey gave the appearance of partisanship by the manner in which they took control of and handled politically-sensitive investigations, such as the case involving then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of a private server for classified emails.
Mr. Comey broke bureau precedent by issuing a statement a few months prior to the election saying Mrs. Clinton would not be charged. Then, just days before the vote, he said publicly that the probe had been reopened. (It was eventually closed with no charges.)
“Most of the agents saw that as a dark period where [FBI leadership] played politics and played it poorly,” says Mr. Clark.
Going forward
The FBI has instituted some reforms in response to the criticism it has received in recent years. In 2019, Mr. Wray ordered a series of changes to FBI procedures for obtaining the type of wiretaps that targeted Mr. Page, the former Trump aide.
What else might be done to bolster GOP trust? One idea involves the appointment of a high-level civil liberties and privacy officer to investigate any credible claim of partisanship and then report publicly and to Congress on what they find.
Mr. Baker, the former NSA general counsel, says he has lobbied Washington leaders to create such a post.
“In the long run, it’s just very dangerous for a government or country to have people believe that law enforcement is fundamentally political, and that one party is going to be advantaged and [the] other disadvantaged in criminal law enforcement and national security – it’s something to be avoided at all costs,” he says.
