This summary draws on a Fresh Air interview with Marc Fisher about his New Yorker profile “Kash Patel’s Acts of Service,” which examines how FBI Director Kash Patel’s background, priorities and style are reshaping the Bureau.
Profile and background
Fisher portrays Patel as unlike previous FBI directors. Where past directors typically rose through long careers in federal law enforcement or prosecution and projected an institutional demeanor, Patel came to the job from national-security and political roles in the first Trump administration without the traditional FBI résumé. His public style is combative and theatrical, and he has cultivated a reputation for loyalty to former President Trump — a combination that has unsettled many current and former agents.
Epstein files and public exchanges
A striking episode Fisher recounts involved a tense hearing with Rep. Eric Swalwell about whether Donald Trump’s name appeared in the Jeffrey Epstein files. Swalwell pressed for a simple yes-or-no answer; Patel repeatedly deflected, saying he had released all legally permissible credible material and framing his responsibility as public safety rather than political speculation. Patel denied telling Trump he was in the files and denied telling the attorney general that Trump’s name appeared, while saying he had discussed the files with the attorney general. Fisher finds the back-and-forth illustrative of Patel’s showmanship and evasiveness.
Before taking the FBI post, Patel had publicly pushed for release of what he called Epstein client lists. After reviewing the material as director, he reversed course, saying no client list existed, minimizing any connection to Trump, and calling Epstein’s death a suicide. Fisher describes the reversal as odd and notes Patel’s indignant tone when questioned.
Personal perks and ethics questions
Patel has been criticized for using Bureau resources for personal travel and security. He arranged executive protection for his girlfriend, country singer Alexis Wilkins — an unusual security provision for a non-spouse — and used the Bureau’s jet for trips to sporting events and other visits, later repaying the agency at commercial rates that agents say understate the true taxpayer cost of operating a government aircraft. These choices have generated internal resentment and raised ethics questions.
Staffing changes and shifting priorities
Under Patel’s leadership, dozens of agents have been fired and many others reassigned. He has told staff that some personnel moves reflect requests or priorities from the White House or Justice Department. Reported dismissals include agents for actions viewed by colleagues as trivial or retaliatory, such as displaying a pride flag or refusing to stage a public “perp walk.” Many agents have retired early or reported low morale.
Patel redirected substantial investigative resources toward immigration and violent-crime missions favored by the administration. Fisher reports roughly a quarter of the FBI’s roughly 13,000 agents were reassigned to immigration-related work, with hundreds more detailed to patrols alongside the National Guard in major cities. At the same time, units that previously handled public-corruption, counterintelligence and international investigations have been weakened or had personnel pulled off complex cases, including Chinese counterespionage work.
Standards, training and security screening
Fisher documents changes to hiring and training standards: the FBI academy was shortened from 18 weeks to eight weeks, and a college degree is no longer required for new agents. Critics and some agents say these moves have watered down longstanding professional standards. Questions about loyalty and screening have also surfaced. Agents report polygraph questions probing fidelity to the director and his agenda — a claim Patel denies — and Patel exempted his deputy director, Dan Bongino, and two other senior hires from taking polygraphs, fueling speculation about why the exemptions were granted.
Retribution, investigations and conspiratorial claims
Fisher describes Patel as intent on pursuing people involved in earlier investigations of Trump and his allies. Patel wrote a book listing about 60 people he views as “government gangsters,” and under his leadership the Bureau has opened or pursued inquiries into former officials tied to probes of Trump, including moves targeting ex-director James Comey. Critics view this as political retribution framed as correcting past “weaponization.”
Patel has also entertained and publicized conspiracy-minded theories. On Joe Rogan’s podcast he suggested the Chinese Communist Party might have intentionally weaponized fentanyl to harm the U.S., and he has alleged — without producing evidence — that the FBI used informants to instigate the Jan. 6 attack. Fisher highlights a pattern of speculative, dramatic public statements.
Declassification, testimony and outside income
Patel has suggested publically that he witnessed Trump declassifying documents moved to Mar-a-Lago and testified before a grand jury after initially invoking the Fifth Amendment; he later answered questions after receiving immunity. During confirmation he declined to disclose that testimony, which some senators found evasive.
Between administrations, Patel ran commercial and political ventures that raised ethical concerns. He sold branded merchandise, wrote politically themed children’s books, promoted supplements, raised funds for January 6 defendants, and operated a consulting firm with clients including the government of Qatar and a Chinese company linked to SHEIN. His Kash Foundation raised about $1.3 million in a year but distributed far less in grants, with substantial funds going to operating expenses and a friend’s advertising firm. Advocacy groups have questioned whether some foreign consulting work should have required registration as a foreign agent. After becoming director, Patel received a waiver to continue handling matters related to Qatar, a country that had previously paid him.
Public image and relationship with Trump
Patel favors high-profile, theatrical displays — proposing, for example, bringing MMA fighters to train agents — gestures that many agents see as undermining the Bureau’s professional mission. Fisher reports that Trump values Patel’s loyalty and willingness to pursue the president’s priorities, even when Patel’s moves have produced missteps or embarrassed the White House.
Conclusion
Fisher’s portrait is of a director who emphasizes loyalty, spectacle and political aims over the Bureau’s traditional norms and career-based expertise. According to current and former agents interviewed for the profile, the result has been lowered training and hiring standards, reassigned priorities away from long-standing missions, internal demoralization, ethical questions about outside ties, and an FBI increasingly shaped to serve presidential priorities.
