Robert S. Held, Board of Governors, Chicago Council of Lawyers
When a president demands personal fealty from senior law enforcement, democracy begins to erode. The purge of seasoned FBI professionals isn’t routine turnover; it is a calculated dismantling of the independence of the FBI—the very safeguard of American justice.
This moment has a troubling historical precedent. During his first administration, we witnessed a chilling preview when the president summoned FBI Director James Comey to dinner and demanded, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” When Comey refused to pledge allegiance to the president, he was fired.
Now we see the same pattern expanded and accelerated. Acting Director Brian Driscoll was dismissed without explanation after refusing to hand over names of agents who investigated the January 6th attack on our Capitol. Steve Jensen, who led the Washington Field Office for nearly two decades, received notice at night that the next day would be his last. Special Agent Walter Giardina, a former Marine who deployed to Iraq after September 11th, was fired just weeks after his wife died of cancer. His transgression? Being involved in the contempt of Congress prosecution of the president’s trade advisor.
Under this purge, the bureau is being recast from neutral investigator to political enforcer. When the administration demanded lists of agents who probed January 6 crimes—branding them purveyors of a ‘national injustice’—refusal became a firing offense.
The FBI Agents Association has expressed “deep concern” that agents are being summarily fired without due process. These agents cannot choose their cases, yet they are being punished for simply doing their jobs. The message is clear and blunt: loyalty to the law is punishable, while loyalty to the administration is rewarded.
While the ‘unitary executive’ theory has conservative scholarly support, this presidential power was never meant to provide cover for a president seeking to shield his allies from justice nor to staff a praetorian guard. The FBI operates under authorities granted by Congress—authorities meant to protect the American people, not the president.
Defenders of these personnel changes argue that presidents routinely replace officials who served previous administrations, and that these agents pursued politically motivated investigations. This argument misses the point entirely. The problem is not the replacement of officials—it is the targeting of career professionals specifically because they followed evidence in legitimate criminal investigations. When agents are fired for having worked cases that resulted in prosecutions of political allies, or for participating in investigations that Congress mandated, we have crossed from personnel management into political retaliation. The distinction between replacing political appointees and punishing career law enforcement for doing their jobs is not merely procedural—it is the difference between constitutional governance and authoritarian control.
The ten-year term for FBI directors was specifically designed to insulate the bureau from political pressure. This structure recognized that law enforcement must remain independent to function properly in a democracy. By deliberately removing officials who uphold the FBI’s independence, the administration is destroying a cornerstone of American justice.
When federal agents must worry about potentially being illegally fired based on their assignments, as the FBI Agents Association warns, the American people become less safe. Already, agents report hesitating to pursue sensitive investigations, fearful that career reprisals await. Agents cannot focus on protecting the country when they fear for their careers. This creates exactly the kind of compromised, politicized law enforcement apparatus that authoritarian leaders depend upon.
The trajectory is unmistakable: experienced professionals are being replaced with apparatchiks whose primary qualification is political allegiance rather than professional competence. This transformation threatens not just individual careers, but the entire framework of justice that protects American democracy. When law enforcement serves power rather than justice, when institutions bow to personal loyalty rather than constitutional duty, we move from democratic governance toward autocratic rule.
If this alarms you, act now: demand rigorous Senate oversight of the FBI, champion whistleblower protections, and vote for leaders who defend law enforcement independence. Once democratic institutions crumble, rebuilding them takes generations.
Robert S. Held is an attorney with 28 years of experience specializing in complex trust and estate litigation.
