Trump's No. 2 Man at FBI Once Said All He Cared About Was ‘Owning the Libs'
On Sunday, the president announced that former Secret Service agent and right-wing podcaster Dan Bongino has been selected to serve as deputy and second in command to recently confirmed FBI director Kash Patel.
According to a Monday report from The New York Times, the decision came shortly after the FBI Agents Association told its members that Patel said his deputy should be a bureau agent — given his own lack of experience within the law enforcement agency. According to a memo obtained by The Bulwark, FBI Agents Association President Natalie Bara met with Patel
in January, when the then-nominee agreed that if appointed, the position of deputy director would be filled by 'an on-board, active Special Agent as has been the case for 117 years.' Somewhere between convincing people to support his bid for the job and actually getting, Patel has conveniently changed his mind.
Unlike Patel, Bongino's role as Deputy Director does not require Senate confirmation — all the better for the former NRA TV host, who has almost as many liabilities as his new boss.
Bongino began his career in law enforcement with a four-year stint in the New York Police Department, which he left to join the Secret Service as a protective detail to former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In 2011, Bongino left the agency to launch a failed bid for the Senate. Throughout his campaign, Bongino leaned heavily into his experience in the White House, claiming to have had access to high-level discussions that made him mistrust the Obama administration. Fellow agents denounced Bongino's claims, telling ABC News at the time that Bongino was trying to 'draw attention to himself and he's hijacking the Secret Service brand.'
Bongino never made it into Congress — sinking in two campaigns for the House after his flop Senate run — but the Trump era propelled him to notoriety as a right-wing commentator and radio host. In 2018, he claimed he'd dedicated his 'entire life right now' to 'owning the libs.' His media career has included stints at the now-defunct NRATV, Fox News, and as a replacement host on The Rush Limbaugh Show following Limbaugh's death. All the while (and like many in his profession) Bongino raked in cash hawking dubious supplements and miracle remedies to his audience.
As a political commentator, Bongino rarely broke step with the cyclical hysterias and conspiracy mongering that define right-wing media. He was a prominent peddler of 2020 election conspiracies (and a staunch defender of the Jan. 6 rioters), opponent of vaccine mandates, promoter of the great replacement conspiracy theory, and even enjoyed dabbling in QAnon.
Bongino frequently leveraged his experience in law enforcement in conservative cable news discussions to justify police brutality and the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers. On Fox News, Bongino defended the killings by police of 13-year-old Adam Toledo, and in 2020 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee urged Congress to reject efforts to reform police departments and create more accountability for law enforcement officers.
During the first weeks of Trump's second administration, Bongino has hyped up the president's power grab and revenge tour against his political opponents. Earlier this month, the radio host urged Trump to ignore a court order blocking the administration's attempt to place a widespread freeze on federal funding.
'Folks, threatening with arrest. Who's going to arrest him? The marshals? You guys know who the U.S. Marshals work for? Department of Justice. That is under the — oh yeah — the executive branch. Donald Trump's going to order his own arrest? This is ridiculous,' Bongino said. 'We need to set up a courtroom. Donald Trump can sit there. He can even wear, like, the wigs they wear in the UK court system, and he can just start making judicial decisions. They'll let them — 'He can't do that, bro.' The judge can't do it either. What's the difference? If the judge is the executive, why can't the executive be the judge?'
In January, Bongino encouraged Trump to launch an investigation into former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who headed the two federal criminal cases against the president in the interim between his terms in office. Both cases were dissolved upon Trump's election.
It's clear that the throughline between Patel and Bongino is not a wealth of experience qualifying them to manage one of the most powerful law enforcement agencies on the planet, but a devoted loyalty to the sitting president and a predilection for revenge fantasies. Patel has been open in the past about his desire to see the Trump administration prosecute the president's perceived enemies. His stewardship of the FBI could give him a powerful tool to do so. In selecting Bongino, the schism between agents at the bureau and the priorities of the Trump administration couldn't be more clear.
More from Rolling Stone
What Dismantling FEMA Will Really Mean When the Next Disaster Strikes
Parroting Putin and Trump, Witkoff Says Russia Was 'Provoked' Into Invading Ukraine
ICE's Next Deportation Target Is Unaccompanied Migrant Children
Best of Rolling Stone
The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign
Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal
The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
5 questions about the Democrats' Tea Party moment
Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for New York City mayor, speaks during a press conference celebrating his primary victory on July 2. Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images Last weekend, my colleague Christian Paz wrote about how the Democratic Party could be on the brink of a grassroots takeover, similar to what the GOP experienced with the Tea Party movement. It's a fascinating piece that could have huge ramifications for Democratic politics, so I sat down with him to chat about his reporting for Vox's daily newsletter, Today, Explained. Our conversation is below, and you can sign up for the newsletter here for more conversations like this. Hey, Christian, how are you? Remind us what the original Tea Party was. What is this movement we're talking about? The movement that I'm talking about started before Obama was elected. It was a mostly libertarian, grassroots, localized, not-that-big movement — a reaction to the bailouts at the end of the Bush administration. The idea being there's too much deficit spending and government is becoming way too big and becoming unmoored from constitutional limited-government principles. It evolved when Obama was elected into a broader anti-Obama backlash and then a major explosion because of the Affordable Care Act fights. It basically turned into an effort to primary incumbent Republicans, an effort to move the party more toward this wing and eventually try to win back control of Congress. After it took off, what happened to the GOP? They were able to win, I believe, five out of the 10 Senate seats that they were challenging. Something like 40 members of Congress were Tea Party-affiliated. The primary thing was that they were successful in massively mobilizing Republican voters and getting people to turn out in the 2010 midterms, which turned out to be one of the biggest 'shellackings,' as Obama called it, that Democrats or that any incumbent president and their party had sustained. Democrats lost control of the House and lost seats in the Senate, and that was a massive setback. From then on, what happened was a successful move by more conservative primary challengers in future elections, the most iconic one being in 2014 — the primary that ousted Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, in favor of a Tea Party activist. It also forced the party as a whole to move to the right, making it more combative, more extreme, and more captive to a more ideological part of the Republican base. Why are we hearing about this now with the Democratic Party? The underlying idea is that there's a divide between the establishment Democrats and populist-minded progressive Democratic candidates. And that's part of the reason why we're hearing this now, because there was a victory in New York City's mayoral primary by Zohran Mamdani, a candidate who is fully in that latter category — a self-described democratic socialist appealing to this idea of bringing out new parts of the electorate, mobilizing people with populist appeal, with targeted, non-polished messaging, and taking more left-leaning positions on policy. The big thing fueling talk about this Tea Party moment for Democrats is that the base has never really been as angry as it is right now. What we're seeing is a combination of anti-Trump anger, wanting a change in direction, wanting a change in leadership, and also some folks who are like, Maybe we should become more progressive as a party. Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer, plus the most compelling stories of the day. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. So tell me about that. A change in leadership, a change in the establishment — what does this movement actually want? It's interesting. Because at least back with the original Tea Party movement, you could point to a core list of priorities there were about repealing Obamacare, about never repeating a bailout, about limiting the federal government's ability to spend. Something like that doesn't exist right now, because it is a pretty disparate energy. The core thing is Democratic voters do not want the current leadership in Congress. They don't like Hakeem Jeffries's style of leadership in the House. They don't like Chuck Schumer's style of leadership in the Senate. There's frustration at older members of Congress being in Congress and serving in leadership capacity right now. In the polling, over and over again, we see, Democrats should be focused on providing a working-class vision for Americans. They should be more focused on kitchen table affordability issues. And that is the thing that most Democratic voters can actually agree on, and basically saying that that's not what they think their current leadership is focused on. What would it look like for the Democratic Party if this actually happens? There are some strategists and activists who are drawing up lists of potential candidates to primary. There are already some challenges underway. I'm thinking of some House seats in Arizona, House seats in Illinois. There's talk, especially after this New York City mayoral contest, about primarying Kirsten Gillibrand or Chuck Schumer and finding challengers to some more moderate House members in the New York area. I'd be looking to see if there actually are younger people launching primary campaigns targeting older or centrist Democratic members of Congress. Once we get to primary season next year, how successful in fundraising are these candidates? Is there an actual effort by some established progressive members of the House to try to support some of these younger candidates?
Chicago Tribune
3 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: State measure that expands mental health screenings for children will save lives
Illinois is facing an unprecedented youth mental health crisis. More than 365,000 Illinois children and adolescents have been diagnosed with anxiety, depression or behavior/conduct problems, as estimated by the 2023 National Survey of Children's Health, yet the number of school mental health professionals remains depleted, limiting critical opportunities to address these children's needs. Fortunately, state legislators in Springfield took meaningful action to ensure our children receive the lifesaving care they deserve. Most crucial was SB1560, expanding mental health screenings to all school-age children beginning in third grade. Many more children who struggle with mental health will be identified early and get the support they need. Unfortunately, critics have spread dangerous disinformation and lies about SB1560 and its lifesaving mission, recklessly claiming the bill has no safeguards, inadequate parental oversight or hidden agendas. These false attacks are harmful to the children who need our help most. The truth is undeniable: This bill will save lives across Illinois. By expanding on existing mental health screening policy, this bill will ensure that thousands more students across the state can finally access the resources they desperately need, and it preserves parents' right to opt out of these screenings. This bill ensures schools equip parents with vital information they need to best help their children. Just like with physical health, these results are treated with the utmost transparency. Schools are required to tell parents if they see signs that their children may be struggling with their mental health. No secrets, no shortcuts, just an honest conversation — an effective way for schools and parents to be partners in supporting Illinois children. The legislators in Springfield proved that the imperative of supporting our children transcends partisan politics. SB1560 passed with a 2-to-1 margin in the House and unanimous approval in the Senate — a powerful testament to its merit. Our children are facing a mental health crisis, and these struggles know no political party. This legislation ensures more Illinois children will have the early identification and intervention that is so effective in addressing mental health needs and preventing many of the long-term struggles that can be so devastating. We are grateful to Sen. Sara Feigenholtz and Rep. Lindsey LaPointe for championing this legislation, and their colleagues in the legislature for passing it. We know this will have a significant impact on the mental health of Illinois's Tribune Editorial Board is right to worry about artificial intelligence giving dangerous mental health advice ('AI therapy? We won't be lying on that couch,' June 18). But HB1806, as written, would ban the wrong AI. If Gov. JB Pritzker signs this bill, purpose-built mental health AI designed with clinical oversight would be illegal in Illinois. Meanwhile, ChatGPT — which might tell someone to use heroin — remains perfectly legal because it disclaims therapeutic intent. At Slingshot, we have worked with over 40 clinicians for months to build these principles into our AI, which Illinoisans are already using. We're not alone: Innovative companies across the country are tackling different aspects of the mental health crisis with thoughtfully designed AI tools. With mental health professional shortages and monthslong waits, we can't afford to ban the very innovations that might help. When general-purpose AI assistants encounter someone in distress, they do what they're trained to do: Follow instructions and please the user. That's how you might get an AI chatbot encouraging heroin use. Our AI can recognize concerning patterns and knows when to push back, when to validate and when to challenge. And it understands that sometimes being helpful means making users a little bit uncomfortable. Some states are getting this right. They're partnering with industry to develop thoughtful policies that acknowledge both risks and benefits — protecting people from dangerous AI while supporting innovations that expand access to care. Illinois can follow this lead. Thoughtful regulation distinguishes between general-purpose AI that happens to give mental health advice and purpose-built mental health AI that uses clinical validation. No one is suggesting AI replace human connection or professional care. But what happens to those who can't access human support? The choice isn't between human therapists and robots. It's between purpose-built, clinically informed AI and the dangerous alternatives people will inevitably turn to when there are no other often say that in today's political climate, it feels like we can't agree on anything. I understand the frustration — but I don't believe that's entirely true. At its core, public policy is a reflection of our shared values. And one of the values I know most of us still hold dear is this: We take care of our elders. Our seniors have spent their lives working, raising families, contributing to their communities and strengthening the very systems we benefit from today. They've earned the right to age with dignity, stability and purpose. That's not a partisan idea — it's a moral obligation. One way we can honor that obligation is by protecting and expanding programs that improve the quality of life for older adults. That includes Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — but also programs such as the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), which too often fly under the radar. SCSEP provides paid, on-the-job training for low-income adults age 55 and older — people who want or need to keep working. It's a lifeline for many, helping cover the basics: rent, medicine, food and more. And it benefits our communities, too, by connecting employers with experienced, reliable workers. But right now, this critical program is in jeopardy. Although Congress has already approved funding for SCSEP for the upcoming program year starting in July, the U.S. Department of Labor has yet to release the funds. This delay is already causing stress for the very people SCSEP is meant to help. Here in Chicago, organizations such as community assistance programs are bracing for real consequences — program suspensions, income loss and seniors being left without the resources they rely on. If this funding isn't released soon, hundreds of older adults could lose the wages they depend on to survive. That's unacceptable. I'm working with my colleagues to explore what we can do at the state level. But this is a federal issue — and we need your voice. I'm urging everyone who believes in protecting our seniors to contact your federal representatives and demand immediate action. Programs such as SCSEP don't just help older adults — they also strengthen our entire workforce and honor the generations that came before us. Let's not turn our backs on those who helped build the world we now stand on. Let's stand with the recent enactment of SB126, Illinois will become the first state in the nation to mandate that state-regulated insurance plans cover federally approved Alzheimer's treatments — a historic step toward better care, earlier diagnosis and a future with more hope for families affected by this devastating disease. Gov. JB Pritzker's signing of this landmark law also ensures that patients will no longer be delayed by 'step therapy,' an insurance practice that forces individuals to try less expensive — and often ineffective — treatments before gaining access to the medications or treatments their doctors originally prescribed. For people living with Alzheimer's, time is not a luxury. Every moment matters. This legislation removes harmful obstacles and affirms that those impacted by dementia deserve timely, evidence-based care. Additionally, the law requires insurance coverage for diagnostic testing at a physician's request, ensuring that patients receive accurate diagnoses before treatment begins. Currently, more than 250,000 Illinoisans are living with Alzheimer's or a related dementia — a number that is expected to grow. The need for accessible and affordable care has never been greater. This victory would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of advocates, families and legislators, as well as a willingness to collaborate with the insurance industry. We're grateful for the leadership of legislative sponsors Sen. Laura Murphy, D-Des Plaines, and Rep. Mary Gill, D-Chicago, and for the bipartisan commitment to addressing one of the most urgent health challenges of our time. Illinois is a national leader in access to Alzheimer's care. We urge other states to follow our example — because patients and caregivers everywhere deserve the same chances at more time, more memories, and more dignity.
New York Times
3 hours ago
- New York Times
Jeff Flake: In Today's G.O.P., Voting Your Conscience Is Disqualifying
Eight years ago, I stood on the floor of the Senate and announced that I would not run for re-election. I spoke then of a fever in our politics, a fever that I hoped would soon break. I noted that in today's Republican Party, anything short of complete and unquestioning loyalty to President Trump — then in his first term — was deemed unacceptable and suspect. Last weekend, Senator Thom Tillis announced that he would not seek re-election, and delivered a message that echoed my own. 'It's become increasingly evident,' he said, 'that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species.' His decision underscores what I feared in 2017: The fever still hasn't broken. In today's Republican Party, voting your conscience is essentially disqualifying. When I was first elected to the House, in 2000, there was room in the G.O.P. for independent judgment. There were plenty of occasions when I voted against President George W. Bush's agenda, including on No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. But President Bush never took it personally. He understood that members of Congress might differ with him and one another on policy without questioning their loyalty. Later, when I was in the Senate, he even came to Arizona to help raise money for my last, abbreviated campaign. Contrast that with the party under President Trump. Any deviation from his dictates is treated as apostasy. It's no longer about ideas or governing philosophies. It's about personal allegiance to a single man, whose positions can shift by the day. That's what makes Senator Tillis's retirement so telling. He could have easily won a general election in North Carolina. But to get there, he would have needed to survive an almost certain primary challenge that would demand he demonstrate absolute fealty to President Trump — something that often requires toeing a constantly shifting line and frequently leads away from responsible governance. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
