Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino fired back Monday at New York Post columnist Miranda Devine, calling her latest column a coordinated “deep‑state hit piece” aimed at undermining the reform-oriented leadership of the agency.
The exchange comes amid long-standing efforts to modernize the agency and historically low public confidence in federal institutions.
Bongino, writing on X, sharply rejected Devine’s allegations, describing her work as “gossipy anecdotes from disgruntled former employees” and accusing her of timing attacks to coincide with major organizational changes.
“Miranda prefers the old guard. I don’t. Full steam ahead,” he wrote.
Devine’s column portrays the FBI under current leadership, including Director Kash Patel, as directionless and overly focused on public perception.
She cites a 115-page internal assessment compiled by current and former agents from the previous era.
The report, which Resist the Mainstream previously covered, alleges that top officials rely heavily on social media, conduct flashy raids to build résumés, and reshape institutional norms for personal advancement.
Among the anecdotes described how Patel allegedly exited an FBI jet wearing a full raid jacket and ordered polygraphs to trace internal leaks.
Critics within the agency, according to the report, also claim ideological biases among agents, paired with hiring practices that favor certain media habits and political leanings—developments they say undermine professionalism and morale.
Supporters of the new leadership argue that transformative change is necessary and urgent.
They contend the FBI has long required modernization to handle contemporary threats more efficiently and transparently.
Historical records note that following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the FBI overhauled its mission structure, converting from a traditional law-enforcement model into a hybrid law-enforcement and intelligence agency, expanding analytical staff, creating new counterterrorism divisions and reshaping field operations and training accordingly.
These post-9/11 reforms aimed to prepare the FBI for cybercrime, jihadi terror networks, global espionage and complex financial crimes.
According to the agency itself, these changes transformed it into a “threat‑based, intelligence‑driven national security organization.”
Yet decades of expanded power and secrecy have eroded public trust.
Surveys show Americans’ confidence in federal institutions remains near historic lows: in 2024, just 22 percent said they trusted the federal government “just about always” or “most of the time,” according to the Pew Research Center.
That broader distrust affects perceptions of the FBI’s role and culture, especially amid allegations that leadership punishes dissent and rewards loyalty.
The tension between reform ambitions and entrenched bureaucracy defines the current dispute, The Gateway Pundit notes.
Advocates say Patel and Bongino continue a necessary modernization effort, emphasizing streamlined operations, national security, crime prevention and accountability.
Critics, including some anonymous agents cited by Devine, warn that rapid leadership changes, internal factionalism, and unverified claims could destabilize an institution whose legitimacy relies on impartiality and public trust.
As the FBI navigates these internal conflicts, the outcome may influence both its operational effectiveness and public perception of law enforcement nationwide.
For an agency with a storied history of reinvention—from early crime-fighting roots to post-9/11 intelligence reform—this leadership confrontation could mark another pivotal moment in defining how America’s primary domestic security agency functions in the modern era.
