Listen to the article
Former FBI Whistleblower Steve Friend Fired Shortly After Reinstatement
A former FBI agent who gained prominence as a COVID-era whistleblower has been terminated just months after being reinstated under President Donald Trump’s administration. Steve Friend was fired on Friday for what the FBI described as “unprofessional conduct and poor judgment,” according to a termination letter shared on social media by New York Post columnist Miranda Devine.
The dismissal letter states that Friend “participated in unauthorized interactions with the media, publicly disseminated media sources, and commented publicly on FBI matters and ongoing FBI investigations.” An FBI source confirmed the firing to reporters but declined to provide additional details, citing confidentiality around personnel matters.
Friend’s complex employment history with the Bureau includes an initial suspension in August 2022, followed by his resignation in February 2023. He was reinstated in September 2023 under the new administration, only to be terminated again three months later.
According to the termination letter, Friend allegedly violated Bureau protocols in November when he “disseminated media sources and photographs identifying an alleged subject and discussed the alleged subject on your podcast, despite the lack of credible, verifiable evidence necessary to publicly identify the subject.”
When contacted for comment, Friend characterized his dismissal as retaliatory action by FBI Director Kash Patel, linking it to criticisms he had raised regarding the Bureau’s recent handling of an arrest in the January 6, 2021, pipe bomb case. This suggests ongoing tensions between Friend and FBI leadership over investigative priorities and public communication policies.
Friend’s termination follows the withdrawal of legal support from Empower Oversight Whistleblowers & Research, a non-profit organization that had previously represented him. On December 5, the organization formally dropped Friend as a client, citing his repeated disregard for their professional advice regarding public commentary on FBI matters.
“In light of your apparent unwillingness to follow the free professional advice we have given you, we are even more convinced that our previously expressed inability to represent you regarding any legal matters other than your reinstatement was warranted,” the non-profit stated in their letter to Friend. “We are no longer willing or able to expend further time and resources representing your interests or providing counsel moving forward.”
This case highlights the complex relationship between whistleblower protections and institutional protocols within federal law enforcement agencies. Friend had previously testified before Congress alongside other FBI whistleblowers in May 2023, raising concerns about Bureau practices and investigations.
The timing of Friend’s dismissal during the transition period of the new administration raises questions about the changing approach to internal Bureau management and whistleblower policies. House Republicans had previously accused the FBI of retaliating against Friend for exposing alleged misconduct, illustrating the politically charged nature of his case.
This latest development occurs against a backdrop of ongoing debates about FBI accountability, transparency, and the appropriate boundaries for employees speaking publicly about sensitive investigations. The case may further intensify scrutiny of FBI policies regarding employee speech and whistleblower protections as the agency navigates a politically polarized environment.
Neither the FBI nor the Department of Justice has issued any additional public statements regarding Friend’s termination beyond confirming the basic facts of his dismissal.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
This case highlights the challenges whistleblowers face in navigating the complex rules and bureaucracy around their disclosures. The FBI’s rationale seems plausible, but a fuller picture is needed to judge if the dismissal was fair. Maintaining trust in government institutions is crucial, even as whistleblowers perform a vital role.
This case illustrates the difficulties whistleblowers face in navigating the bureaucratic and political landscape. While their disclosures are important, they must also operate within the rules of the institutions they are challenging. The details here will be crucial in determining whether the FBI’s actions were appropriate or an abuse of power.
The FBI’s justification for dismissing Friend seems reasonable, given the alleged violations of media protocols. However, more details would be helpful to fully understand the context and merits of the case. Whistleblower protections are crucial, but they come with responsibilities as well.
Yes, it’s a nuanced situation. While the FBI’s claims appear valid, there may be more to the story. Transparency around the specifics would allow a better assessment of whether the dismissal was warranted or an overreach.
This is an interesting case that highlights the need for government whistleblowers to follow proper protocols. While they play an important role, unauthorized media contacts can undermine their credibility. It will be worth watching how this plays out and whether Friend has grounds to appeal the dismissal.
Agreed, whistleblowers need to balance their duty to expose wrongdoing with maintaining the integrity of government processes. Improper media interactions could jeopardize their standing and the public’s trust in their claims.
The dismissal of this whistleblower is concerning, as it could deter others from coming forward. However, the FBI’s claims of unauthorized media contacts and poor judgment suggest the matter is more complex than a simple retaliation case. Whistleblower protections are important, but so is adherence to proper procedures.
Agreed, this is a delicate balance. Whistleblowers perform a vital function, but they must also respect appropriate protocols. More transparency around the specifics could help assess whether the dismissal was justified or an overzealous response.