Democratic lawmaker clashes with FBI Director Patel over investigations
WASHINGTON – FBI Director Kash Patel and Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean got into a fiery exchange over his loyalty to President Donald Trump, as she accused him of apparent perjury and being "unfit" for his post while he fired back that she was "lying" about him.
During a May 7 hearing on the FBI's budget, Dean accused Patel of helping the president weaponize the FBI and investigate his perceived enemies, including a Wisconsin judge charged with helping an undocumented immigrant.
'I am concerned that your eagerness and childlike giddiness to carry out the president's revenge tour, you have shown yourself to be unserious,' said Dean of Pennsylvania, who served as an impeachment prosecutor against Trump in his 2021 Senate trial after his first term. 'In your statements before you were sworn in and some after, you have shown yourself unfit to lead this important agency.'
Dean also accused Patel of apparent perjury for testifying during his Senate confirmation hearing that he was unfamiliar with Stew Peters, an allegedly antisemitic Holocaust denier, despite appearing on Peters' podcast eight times.
'Should we worry more about your memory or your veracity?' Dean asked.
Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) questions Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel while holding a copy of his book, "Government Gangsters" during a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee's Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on May 07, 2025 in Washington, DC. Patel testified about the FBI's FY2026 budget request.
Patel fired back that his book "Government Gangsters" didn't contain an 'enemies list' of people whom Trump should investigate.
'We should worry more about your lack of candor. You're accusing me of committing perjury? Tell the American people how I broke the law and committed a felony,' Patel said. 'Have the audacity to actually put the facts forward instead of lying for political banter so you can have a 20-second donation hit.'
'The answer is your failing, not me,' Patel added.
Patel says he proposed $1 billion more than FBI than Trump
The clash erupted during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Trump's budget blueprint for the FBI. Trump proposed a $545 million cut for the agency, for about $10.2 billion for the year starting Oct. 1. But Patel said he proposed a $500 million increase, to about $11.2 billion.
Dean asked if Patel would confront Trump about the difference.
'In your proposal, you find a gulf of difference between you and the president,' Dean said. 'Are you going to go to the president and straighten out that gulf?'
Patel said he would represent the American people, uphold the Constitution and ensure the FBI isn't weaponized.
'Maybe you should do the same,' said Patel, who told Dean that television cameras were waiting for her if she wanted to keep putting words in his mouth.
Kash Patel, Director of the FBI, testifies in front of the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies in Washington, D.C., on May 7, 2025.
'This is an unserious moment for the FBI,' Dean replied as her time for questions ran out.
'More so for you,' Patel replied.
Lawmakers complain about lack of details in FBI 'Ozempic' budget
Lawkmakers repeatedly asked about the discrepancy between what Patel sought for FBI funding and what he said Trump's Office of Management and Budget sent in its proposal May 6 to Congress. The lack of detail led to its nickname as a 'skinny' budget, which Dean called an 'Ozempic budget,' but the administration plans to submit more details in the future.
'This is your budget,' said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. 'You have to have some idea of what to fund or not fund.'
Patel moving 1,000 agents, analysts out of headquarters to states
Patel said if lawmakers adopted Trump's proposal, he would have to cut 1,300 staffers and not fill 1,100 vacancies. But he said he would fight for more funding in negotiations with Congress.
'At this time we have not focused on who to cut. We are focusing our energies on how not to do the cuts,' Patel said. 'What we're focusing on is working with our partners in OMB and appropriators to say that we cannot cover our mission at the levels that we would have to go to…should all the budget cuts be needed.'
Kash Patel, Director of the FBI, testifies in front of the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies in Washington, D.C., on May 7, 2025.
In addition to negotiations over funding, Patel said he was reducing staffing in the FBI headquarters region in Washington, D.C., as he said when he was nominated. He is moving 1,000 agents and analysts from the headquarters to regional offices in every state. The FBI has about 11,000 staffers in the D.C. region out of 35,000 total.
Lawmakers were eager to hear who was getting greater staffing. Based on the proportion of violent crime per capita, Patel said Texas is slated to get 90 more FBI staffers, Missouri 37 and Virginia 20.
'I firmly believe putting people in the field is one of the ways we can secure our communities,' Patel said.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Democratic lawmaker clashes with FBI Director Patel over investigations
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk goes scorched earth: Trump will cause recession, implies he should be impeached
Elon Musk and Donald Trump's alliance continues to publicly implode, with the world's richest man taking aim at the president's signature economic policy — tariffs — and implying he should be removed from office. 'The Trump tariffs will cause a recession in the second half of this year,' Musk wrote on X Thursday afternoon. It marks Musk's biggest criticism yet of one of Trump's most beloved policies. Musk also took aim at one of the president's most-hated political maneuvers: impeachment. Responding to another post about who would win in a fight between Musk and Trump — which also calls for Trump to be impeached and for Vice President JD Vance to replace him — Musk simply responded: 'Yes.' Trump was impeached twice by a Democratic-controlled House during his first term, but was acquitted both times by the Senate. Musk — who's been launching back and forth attacks with Trump all day Thursday — has never been a big fan of Trump's sweeping tariff plans, and publicly ridiculed Peter Navarro, one of the public faces of Trump's trade war, while he was still a government employee. The tariffs are set to have huge implications for Musk's car company Tesla, because of the rising costs of materials and manufacturing abroad. The car company's stocks took a dive following the tariff announcements, and were also impacted by Musk's growing absence from the company during his time as Trump's special adviser while leading the Department of Government Efficiency. That said, Musk has called Tesla the 'least affected' car company from the tariffs, due to supply chains being split between Europe, China and North America. But the Tesla CEO hasn't shied away from bashing Trump's trade advisers in the past — even labeling Navarro a 'moron.' In addition to railing against the tariffs, Musk has spent the last three days rallying against the administration's "big beautiful bill," which he called "disgusting" and "pork-filled" in a flood of X posts — urging Senate Republicans to reject the mega-funding legislation. Trump hit back early Thursday, saying he was 'disappointed' by Musk's comments. 'Elon and I had a great relationship,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'I don't know if we will anymore.' Upon return to their respective social media sites, the two turned up the heat. What has since ensued has been a barrage of X posts from the billionaire and corresponding Truth Social posts from the president that have widened a chasm between the two — who just last Friday stood side by side at the Oval Office on Musk's last day in the White House, as Trump thanked him for his service. Now, Trump said Musk has a case of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome,' a taunt usually reserved for his political opponents. He's also floating ending all of Musk's federal government contracts including with his company SpaceX — one of NASA's biggest contractors. The attacks escalated when Musk suggested that Trump would not have won the 2024 election without his help, and that Republicans would have been outnumbered in Congress. 'Such ingratitude,' Musk wrote on X, referencing the hundreds of millions he poured into Trump's and other GOP campaigns. Musk had a poll running at the top of his X feed asking people about forming a third party. He had suggested on Tuesday, when he took his first big shot at the Republican megabill, that he could fund campaigns to primary and potentially unseat Republicans that backed the legislation. The SpaceX founder then dropped what he described as the 'really big bomb.' Musk suggested that Trump's name appears in records of the investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and said the records 'have not been made public' to conceal that fact. In February, the Department of Justice released what it called the 'first phase' of documents related to the Epstein investigation, which has been a fixation of some of the president's supporters. It has long been public that Trump — along with other prominent figures, like Bill Clinton — are referenced in documents released in court cases surrounding Epstein. But Trump is not accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein. Trump has tied Musk's criticism of the 'big beautiful bill' to the looming end of a tax credit for electric vehicles, which will also deal a blow to Tesla. 'Suddenly he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out we're going to cut the EV mandate that's billions and billions of dollars,' Trump said Thursday. Musk denied Trump's framing, reaffirming his larger criticism of the bill's spending and the potential for it to add trillions to the national deficit over the next 10 years. The former DOGE adviser also shut down the idea that he was familiar with the 'inner workings' of the bill from his time in the White House, calling that a lie.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially." Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
Chicago Tribune
21 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: Ukraine is using the weapons of the future
Most wars are started on the basis of the previous war and then upgraded during the next war. Today we are spending hundreds of billions on weapons that are ready to fight the last war against countries that were using weapons from their previous war. Fancy jets and ships are going to be worthless. The war in the Ukraine is a great example of today's technology. The Ukrainians have damaged or destroyed most of the Russian Black Sea Fleet while they were at sea or tied to a dock. They hit air bases, warehouses, troop concentrations and refineries with their drones. Smaller drones have destroyed armored personnel carriers, trucks and tanks. Even smaller ones are being used to kill soldiers at the front. All of that was done without putting a soldier in danger. Most of the drones are GPS controlled. Some are by controllers using drone videos with some now using AI. Russia is a second rate military and was caught cold on their invasion of Kyiv by drones, which have advanced faster than their defenses have been able to counter. A recent '60 Minutes' episode had an item about drones from an American company designing AI drones for our military. They range from small to the size of jet aircraft. Imagine an aircraft carrier group besieged by a thousand drones in the Persian Gulf or Arabian Sea. The entire fleet could be damaged or sunk. Imagine a cargo ship sailing into the Chesapeake Bay and launching hundred of drones at Washington D.C. and the Norfolk naval base. Imagine a dozen more ships scattered around the country using longer range drones. Most of our non-nuclear forces would be decimated. That could be tomorrow!While it is highly debatable that Larry Hoover should have his sentences commuted one thing that we need to focus on is why. While Mr. Hoover may not have been directly linked to anyone's murder, it is safe to assume that due to the nature of being a gang leader he may have ordered murders and probably influenced a lot of his members to commit heinous crimes as well. But as some are celebrating the move by President Donald Trump (hopefully not many), I am of the opinion that Trump is trying to sneak one past us. He has ordered the closing of the Job Corps: a program designed to tackle youth unemployment that has been in existence since 1964. Countless youth were able to take advantage of this program which probably kept them from the tentacles of street gang life. While Trump may seek the approval of some in the African- American community, hopefully they don't ignore the disastrous effects closing a program like Job Corps can readers must be familiar with the Broken Windows Theory of policing, introduced by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in 1982, that suggested that unchecked small offenses like broken windows, graffiti, and litter lead to greater crimes and societal breakdown. Donald Trump and his posse are throwing as many rocks as they can as fast as they can at the windows of our republic, collaterally damaging the rule of law, trust, civility and other civilizational essentials in the process. They cannot operate to their own best advantage in a healthy democracy and legal system, so they are trying to undermine it by accustoming citizens to broken political and legal windows. Trump's ideal environment is one in which there is so much corruption and illegality that he can ask, 'Whaddya looking at me for?' It is working. Several prominent people (Anne Applebaum, Maria Ressa and Gary Kasparov) who are either scholars of authoritarianism or have been dissidents in nations ruled by authoritarians have expressed surprise, not at what Trump is doing, but at the speed with which his project to dismantle our republic is progressing. He has not matched Adolf Hitler's legal neutering of Germany's republic in only 53 days after taking power, but this is hardly a reassuring thought. I continue to be puzzled by the disinterest with which many people respond to what is happening. The scholars and dissidents whom I cited agree that we do not have as much time to turn back the threat to our nation as many people seem to think that we have. The hope that things will simply self-correct is a fading one. Our leverage diminishes daily. Those who are working at changing our system to one that they can control and profit from and use to inflict damage on the officially unfavored are counting on our apathy. We should, at least, be openly discussing what is happening. The usual rule about about avoiding the subject of politics should be suspended for as long as the threat lasts.I find it interesting that when the Democrats, under Joe Biden and his minions, literally threw money at anything that moved, very few Democrat voiced any criticism. I mean, what is a few trillion dollars here and there? Now that Republicans try to find a way to undo the massive deficits, Democrats are screaming about Republicans trying to cut the deficit, and complain bitterly about the GOP adding to it. Such short to Ashley Nunes' June 2 article 'Outrage over Trump's EV policies misplaced,' Mr. Nunes' essay clumsily dances around the paramount need for electric vehicles — the Earth is too hot and getting hotter. The devastation caused by climate change — wildfires, floods, excessive heat, more numerous and catastrophic storms — is wreaking havoc on the planet. According to the EPA, 29% of greenhouse gas emissions are from cars, trucks, buses, etc. Transportation electrification would contribute mightily to the abeyance and cessation of these current and future disasters, saving untold property and lives. Mr. Nunes' dubious arguments belie the cataclysm facing the world.
