“They Have No Idea What They’re Doing”: The Dismantling of the FBI and American Security

Michael Feinberg, a conservative, 15-year veteran of the FBI, was not planning to leave the Bureau. But on May 31st, his career came to an abrupt and chilling end, not because of any misconduct, but because of a personal friendship. His boss informed him that the FBI’s new leadership had discovered his association with a former agent critical of President Felonious Punk. The message was clear: in the new FBI, competence is secondary, but personal loyalty is absolute. Feinberg’s forced resignation is not an isolated personnel dispute; it is a symptom of a much larger and more dangerous phenomenon: the “radical deprofessionalization” of the FBI and the deliberate dismantling of America’s national security infrastructure from within.

Part I: A “Cultural Revolution”

Feinberg’s ouster illustrates the brutal mechanics of the new loyalty tests being implemented at the highest levels of American law enforcement. After his friendship with former agent Peter Strzok—a frequent target of the President’s ire—was discovered, a previously approved promotion was canceled. He was given two choices: accept a demotion or resign, a devastating ultimatum for a dedicated agent just five years shy of his pension. But the conditions for staying were even more sinister.

In his own words, from an essay published in LawFare, Feinberg described what was demanded of him: “I would be asked to submit to a polygraph exam probing the nature of my friendship… and (as I was quietly informed by another, friendlier senior employee) what could only be described as a latter-day struggle session.” This is an explosive and deliberately chosen phrase, a direct reference to the brutal public humiliation rituals of Maoist China. Feinberg continued, “I would be expected to grovel, beg forgiveness, and pledge loyalty as part of the FBI’s cultural revolution brought about by Patel and Bongino’s accession to the highest echelons of American law enforcement and intelligence.”

This is not a simple politicization; it is the importation of totalitarian tactics. Feinberg’s story is not unique. As other reports have indicated, the new FBI leadership has begun using lie detectors not for investigations, but to test employee loyalty to the administration’s appointees. This ideological purge has created what Feinberg calls an “exile community” of dedicated, experienced former Justice Department and FBI officials who have been forced out and are now working to support one another, a testament to the scale of the intellectual and ethical cleansing underway at the Bureau.

Part II: The Brain Drain and the National Security Cost

This purge of expertise is not just a tragedy for the individuals involved; it is a direct and measurable threat to the security of the United States. The “brain drain” of institutional knowledge is actively weakening our ability to confront our most serious adversaries. Michael Feinberg is a case in point. A fluent Mandarin speaker, he helped spearhead the FBI’s complex counterintelligence investigation into the Chinese technology giant Huawei. Now he is gone, and he has expressed grave doubts that anyone at the senior levels of counterintelligence who replaced him even speaks the language. “It’s particularly concerning to me,” he wrote, “to see resources and efforts diverted away from hostile foreign intelligence services… to focus on minor immigration status offenses.”

This diversion of resources is the second pillar of the institutional decay. Feinberg described how highly trained counterintelligence agents were being pulled from their critical missions to serve as little more than intimidating scenery during ICE raids. This is not only a profound waste of specialized talent and taxpayer money, but it is also actively counterproductive to other stated law enforcement goals.

The policy creates a chilling effect in the very communities the FBI needs to cultivate for intelligence. As Feinberg astutely points out, why would any member of a Latin American immigrant community, who might have crucial information about a transnational gang like MS-13, ever trust the FBI? If contacting law enforcement about a violent criminal carries the risk of getting yourself or your family deported, the rational choice is to remain silent. The administration’s policy, therefore, does not just waste resources; it actively destroys the trust that is the lifeblood of intelligence gathering, making the country less safe.

Part III: The Real Betrayal

The forced exodus of thousands of vetted, experienced national security professionals has sparked a new and dangerous narrative: that the real threat is a coming wave of espionage from these disgruntled former employees. This “numbers game” theory, a “fear instrument masquerading as analysis,” posits that betrayal is a statistical inevitability. But this cynical logic is not supported by data. Decades of research show that espionage is not an impulsive act of revenge; it is a complex, “slow-burning” process often involving long-term cultivation and pre-existing psychological vulnerabilities. The most infamous American spies—Ames, Hanssen, Snowden—were not fired; they betrayed their country from within, and the institutions designed to watch them failed to see the signs.

This reveals the true, and far more terrifying, threat. The betrayal to fear is not from those who have been pushed out, but from a system that is being systematically dismantled from within. The real risk is not that individuals will “go rogue,” but that the very structures designed to detect and prevent betrayal have been hollowed out by the administration’s political appointees.

The evidence of this institutional collapse, as detailed in a Just Security analysis, is stark. At the Department of Justice, the senior leadership of the National Security Division has been displaced and its funding cut. At the FBI, the cascading loss of experienced directors has left critical divisions in the hands of novices, creating what former Counterintelligence Director Peter Strzok calls a “greater vulnerability.”

This decay extends across the entire intelligence apparatus. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has seen its workforce slashed and its ability to monitor insider threats weakened. Crucial security protocols, like formal exit briefings for departing personnel with high-level clearances, have been made inconsistent or abandoned entirely. In Congress, allies of the administration have introduced legislation to gut the ODNI further, seeking to eliminate core institutions like the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC)—the very body responsible for implementing the nation’s counterintelligence strategy.

A Failure of Design

The story of Michael Feinberg is therefore a microcosm of a much larger tragedy. An administration led by figures who, in his words, “get a kick out of playing dress-up and acting tough… but actually have no idea what they’re doing,” is not just purging individuals. It is creating a systemic and generational failure in American national security.

The coordinated dismissal of career professionals, the erosion of oversight mechanisms, and the political recasting of loyalty as ideology are not isolated threats. They are the deliberate dismantling of the very structures built over decades to detect and deter betrayal. As Just Security concludes, “The betrayal of fear is not from those pushed out, but from a system that let itself be dismantled… That failure, more than any one act of espionage, is the defining national security risk of this moment.”