Kash Patel just fired a senior FBI analyst. Her offense was a 2017 report that didn’t give Republicans the label they wanted

FBI Director Kash Patel fired Deputy Assistant Director Emily Morales last week over a 2017 report about the congressional baseball practice shooting. The report was about James Hodgkinson, who opened fire on a Republican congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, seriously injuring Rep. Steve Scalise and two Capitol Police officers.

According to MS NOW, the FBI’s original report did not label Hodgkinson a domestic terrorist, which angered Republican lawmakers. However, in 2021, the FBI told the House Appropriations Committee that the shooter was motivated by a desire to attack members of Congress, and that his conduct “would today be characterized as a domestic terrorism event.” House Republicans had called the incident a premeditated assassination attempt by a radical, left-wing political extremist.

Morales’ firing has caused concern inside the FBI, with many seeing it as part of a pattern of firing nonpartisan agents whose work displeased President Trump or Republicans. Some former agents have sued the bureau and Patel, saying they were fired for political reasons, and the FBI Agents Association has said that many of these firings were illegal.

The FBI’s firings under Patel appear to be driven by political pressure, not performance

Before Morales, Patel also removed Tonya Ugoretz, the assistant director in charge of the Intelligence Directorate. Her offense was withdrawing a poorly sourced intelligence report that claimed China tried to flood the United States with fake driver’s licenses to promote fraud in the 2020 election. Ugoretz has since spoken out, saying the bureau’s tactics are “choking the capabilities that help it stop criminals, spies, hackers, and terrorists before they act.”

In a statement about Morales’ firing specifically, Ugoretz said that tactical reports “are meant to provide an understanding of information as it is known at the time,” and that “information can change, and usually does.” She was pointing out that it was unfair to fire someone over a report that reflected what was known at the time it was written.

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen has called for Patel’s removal as FBI director, accusing him of having “completely weaponized the FBI.” Van Hollen pointed to Patel’s handling of agents who investigated the January 6 rioters and those involved in the probe of Trump taking classified materials to Mar-a-Lago as examples of political interference. Van Hollen has also raised questions about Patel’s alcohol use and his ability to lead the bureau.

The broader pattern of firings raises serious questions about whether the FBI is being pushed to match Republican expectations rather than carry out unbiased investigations. Former agents who have sued the bureau say this is exactly what is happening, and the FBI Agents Association’s stance that many of these firings were illegal adds weight to those claims. 

Patel has publicly claimed that his time leading the bureau has been productive, but his actual record as FBI director tells a very different story. With multiple firings, ongoing lawsuits, and growing criticism from both former officials and lawmakers, the FBI’s handling of personnel matters is now under serious public scrutiny. Whether the bureau can maintain its credibility and independence amid this pressure remains an open question.