The more Americans learn about what happened inside the FBI during Joe Biden’s presidency, the more disturbing the picture becomes.
This wasn’t just partisan politics.
This was federal power being turned against the political opposition.
New reporting confirms that Joe Biden’s FBI secretly obtained the phone records of Kash Patel and Susie Wiles in 2022 and 2023 — both private citizens at the time — as part of Jack Smith’s now-collapsed classified documents investigation into President Donald Trump.
The sitting president’s administration authorized federal investigators to subpoena the phone data of close associates of his chief political rival during an active presidential campaign cycle.
🚨 BREAKING: The Biden FBI under Christopher Wray obtained phone records from Kash Patel and Susie Wiles in 2022 and 2023, while BOTH of them were private citizens, leading to Jack Smith's witch hunt against Trump
The amount of ROT in the FBI is INSANE.
TEN FBI employees… pic.twitter.com/3ZC3prpGw9
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) February 25, 2026
“It is outrageous and deeply alarming that the previous FBI leadership secretly subpoenaed my own phone records — along with those of now White House chief of staff Susie Wiles — using flimsy pretexts and burying the entire process in prohibited case files designed to evade all oversight,” Kash Patel told Fox News.
Flimsy pretexts. Buried case files. Evading oversight.
That’s not routine law enforcement. That’s the language of institutional abuse.
According to Fox News, “The FBI subpoenaed Kash Patel and Susie Wiles’ phone records in 2022 and 2023, when both were private citizens, as part of a federal probe into then former President Donald Trump, Fox News has confirmed. Patel is the current FBI director, and Wiles is White House chief of staff.”
Reuters first disclosed the subpoenas, which were issued while special counsel Jack Smith was investigating Trump’s handling of classified documents and his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
In June 2023, Smith indicted Trump on 37 federal counts related to records stored at Mar-a-Lago — records kept at a residence guarded by the United States Secret Service. Trump was charged with 31 counts under the Espionage Act for willful retention of national defense information, along with six additional process-related charges stemming from conversations with his lawyer.
The case ultimately collapsed.
In 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Smith’s classified documents case, ruling that Smith’s appointment by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland was unconstitutional and that the unlimited funding granted to him lacked congressional approval.
In other words, the very investigation used to justify secret subpoenas of Trump allies was later declared fundamentally unlawful.
That context makes what happened even more alarming.
This wasn’t a neutral inquiry that went sideways. It was a legally defective prosecution that empowered federal agents to dig through the phone records of political associates of a former president — who was, at the time, the leading challenger to Biden and the Democratic Party’s path to keeping Kamala Harris in power.
The optics are chilling.
When the federal government secretly subpoenas private citizens connected to the president’s opponent, hides the paperwork in restricted files, and avoids oversight — that isn’t normal politics.
That’s the weaponization of the state.
Now comes the accountability.
Patel, now serving as FBI director, fired at least 10 FBI employees involved in the secret subpoenas. “At least ten FBI employees were fired Wednesday, Fox News has been told. Names were not given due to privacy reasons.”
The purge signals that what occurred was not merely procedural.
It was unacceptable.
The American public can debate Trump’s policies. They can argue about classified records and executive authority. That’s democracy.
But the use of federal investigative power against political rivals — under questionable legal foundations — crosses a line that no republic should tolerate.
The Constitution was not designed to allow a sitting administration to quietly surveil the inner circle of its top political opponent.
Yet that’s exactly what happened.
And the fact that it happened under the banner of “law enforcement” makes it all the more dangerous.
This isn’t just another headline.
It’s a warning about how fragile institutional guardrails can become when politics overrides principle.
The firings are a start.
But for many Americans, the deeper question remains: how did it get this far in the first place?
