Burak Uzun“Numbers don’t lie,” declares the FBI’s deputy director in a fiery social media post. “Yet the media would have you believe America has never been less safe.”
It’s a clash playing out not in covert corridors or classified briefings—but in public, in headlines, and on Twitter feeds.
At the centre of the storm is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, America’s premier law enforcement and intelligence agency, now facing accusations that it’s being turned into a tool of political loyalty in President Donald Trump’s second administration.
Last week, The New York Times published a blistering op-ed, accusing Trump and his handpicked leadership of gutting the FBI’s senior ranks, sidelining seasoned national security experts, and refocusing the bureau on politically charged priorities like immigration enforcement and MAGA-aligned conspiracy investigations.
According to the Times, the result is an FBI “completely unprepared to respond to a crisis,” with decades of expertise “obliterated” in a matter of months.
But the FBI’s new leadership sees it differently.
In an extraordinary personal statement, the bureau’s deputy director shot back, labelling the Times piece a “hit job” devoid of evidence. He boasted of plunging murder rates, record drug seizures, and thousands of violent criminals behind bars—a list of victories he insists proves that, under Trump’s team, the FBI is stronger and more effective than ever.
The question now gripping Washington—and echoing far beyond—is simple but profound: Is America safer under this newly reorganised FBI, or is it standing on shakier ground than ever before?
A radical reorganisation
From the very first days of Trump’s second term, winds of change swept through the FBI like a political hurricane. Barely eleven days after Trump retook the oath of office, the administration began executing a purge that would send shockwaves through the bureau’s ranks.
Six of the FBI’s most senior executives at its Washington headquarters were forced out in rapid succession.
Among them were Robert Wells, who oversaw the national security branch; Ryan Young, head of the intelligence branch; Robert Nordwall, who led criminal and cyber response; Arlene Gaylord, from information technology; Jackie Maguire of science and technology; and J. William Rivers, in charge of human resources.
Each of these officials had spent decades climbing the bureau’s hierarchy, many becoming pillars of the FBI’s institutional knowledge.
David Sundberg, the assistant director in charge of the Washington field office, was also notified he would lose his job—an especially significant move given his office’s deep involvement in prosecutions related to Trump’s first presidency and the sprawling investigation into the January 6 Capitol riots.
Elsewhere across the country, field office leaders faced similar fates. Spencer Evans, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Las Vegas field office, announced his dismissal to staff, writing that he was given no rationale for the sudden move. Jeffrey Veltri, who headed the Miami office, was also reportedly ousted.
Even more striking, letters sent to dozens of federal prosecutors tied their removal directly to their involvement in January 6 prosecutions. The letters cited an executive order from Trump declaring the prosecutions “a grave national injustice”.
At the centre of this transformation stands Kash Patel, the new FBI director and a controversial Trump loyalist, alongside his deputy, Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent turned conservative media figure. Under their leadership, critics argue the bureau has sacrificed deep expertise for political loyalty.
Yet supporters claim this shake-up was long overdue—that entrenched factions within the FBI had grown resistant to change and biased against Trump’s agenda. As one official said bluntly, “They used the Justice Department to go after their political opponent. That’s illegal—and it didn’t work.”
The numbers game: FBI’s case for success
For all the political turbulence swirling around the FBI, the bureau’s new leadership insists there’s a simpler truth that critics refuse to acknowledge: the numbers.
In a blistering tweet storm, the FBI’s deputy director laid out what he called “undeniable facts” proving the success of the agency’s new direction under President Trump and director Kash Patel. According to him, the shift of manpower away from bureaucratic layers and towards operational field work has led to historic results.
Among the most dramatic claims: violent crime in America is on track to hit its lowest rate in modern history, thanks in part to a nationwide operation codenamed ‘Summer Heat’.
The initiative, which deploys FBI resources to local law enforcement hotspots, has reportedly contributed to record drops in homicides and violent assaults in dozens of major cities. “Summer Heat is coming to a city or town near you,” the deputy director vowed, framing the operation as a crusade to purge communities of violent predators.
Beyond street crime, the FBI points to impressive wins in other critical areas.
Over the past few months alone, agents have arrested more than 14,000 violent criminals—a 62 percent increase compared to the same period last year. In the fight against child exploitation, the bureau claims to have rescued over one hundred children from predators, while simultaneously arresting more than 825 violent child abusers and 140 human traffickers.
On the national security front, the bureau says it has apprehended 51 foreign intelligence operatives allegedly engaged in espionage or smuggling dangerous materials into the United States.
Meanwhile, large-scale drug busts have seized staggering amounts of narcotics—44,000 kilos of cocaine, 3,500 kilos of methamphetamine, and 1,210 kilos of fentanyl—a 22 percent uptick over last year’s figures.
Yet, perhaps the most politically charged statistic is the claim that the FBI, in coordination with federal partners, apprehended, imprisoned, or deported over 18,000 undocumented immigrants, many allegedly with violent criminal histories.
“As a result, last month, again, zero illegals were admitted into our country,” the deputy director boasted, a figure likely to resonate with Trump’s base, but which critics argue reflects the bureau’s troubling prioritisation of political agendas over traditional law enforcement missions.
To the new leadership, these figures are proof positive that the agency’s reorganisation is working. As the deputy director declared: “Numbers don’t lie. America is safer because we refused to keep doing business as usual.”
Critics push back: What’s missing behind the numbers?
While the FBI’s new leadership floods social media with statistics touting record-breaking arrests and drug seizures, critics warn that numbers alone don’t tell the full story—and might even mask a more dangerous reality unfolding behind the bureau’s closed doors.
Former officials, national security experts, and journalists argue that the very expertise needed to sustain those successes has been systematically gutted. The mass firings and forced retirements that swept through the FBI’s leadership in recent months didn’t just remove high-ranking bureaucrats, they say—it obliterated decades of institutional memory and specialised skill.
Adam Goldman, reporting for The New York Times, wrote that the bureau’s new power structure “has left it completely unprepared to respond to a crisis, including the fallout from the current conflict in the Middle East.”
He and other reporters point to the loss of figures like Robert Wells and Ryan Young as signs of a dangerous vacuum at the top.
It’s not only national security experts who are raising alarms. Multiple sources within the bureau say agents with backgrounds in cybercrime, counterintelligence, and organised crime have either been fired or reassigned to immigration squads tasked with meeting politically charged quotas—such as the Trump administration’s goal of 3,000 immigration arrests per day.
As one former agent described it, “They’re cannibalising the bureau. They’ve taken highly trained agents with master’s degrees and military experience and stuck them on perimeter duty at ICE roundups.”
Critics also highlight the chilling effect of political purges.
Prosecutors who worked on the January 6 investigations have been systematically removed, often with no official explanation other than their involvement in cases viewed as politically sensitive.
Spencer Evans, the ousted head of the Las Vegas field office, told colleagues he was blindsided by his dismissal and offered no rationale for his removal—a pattern that has left many remaining agents fearful and demoralised.
Furthermore, watchdog groups warn that the bureau’s public relations victories may not be as robust as advertised. High arrest numbers, they argue, don’t always translate into successful prosecutions—or meaningful disruption of complex criminal networks.
The concern is that showy enforcement actions may be replacing the quiet, painstaking work of gathering intelligence and building long-term investigations.
As one veteran intelligence analyst bluntly put it, “You can’t arrest your way out of national security threats. And right now, the FBI is running out of people who know how to handle the threats we don’t see coming.”
Trust and the politics of policing
Beyond the immediate metrics of arrests and drug seizures lies a deeper, more intangible crisis for the FBI: trust.
For decades, the bureau has relied on the confidence of both the American public and its own agents to function effectively. Now, that trust appears more fragile than at any point in recent memory.
Historically, the FBI has carried the scars of politicisation. Under J. Edgar Hoover, it notoriously spied on civil rights leaders and political dissenters. Richard Nixon’s administration tried to weaponise the bureau against perceived enemies, prompting sweeping reforms after the Watergate scandal designed to insulate the FBI from presidential influence.
But critics say President Trump’s second term has shattered that firewall. Instead of an independent investigative agency, they argue, the FBI is being recast as an enforcement arm aligned with political goals, pursuing certain targets while shielding allies.
As The New York Times editorial warned, “Among his many efforts to weaken American democracy and amass more power for himself, Trump’s politicisation of the FBI is one of the most blatant.”
Within the bureau itself, morale has become a point of deep concern. More than 650 FBI employees recently filed for early retirement, according to reports.
Some cite frustration over sudden leadership purges; others fear the consequences of speaking out in an environment where loyalty to Trump is increasingly seen as a litmus test for career survival. The result, say former agents, is a workforce plagued by anxiety, secrecy, and suspicion.
Public trust has also been rattled. Communities which once cooperated with FBI agents on counterterrorism, organised crime, and corruption cases are now questioning the bureau’s motives.
Civil liberties advocates warn that prioritising immigration enforcement and politically charged investigations risks alienating immigrant communities and activists whose support the bureau has historically depended upon.
Dan Bongino’s presence as deputy director fuels these anxieties. His public record of labelling the FBI as a “full-blown leftist political action committee” before joining its leadership has left many wondering whether the bureau’s top brass genuinely believe in its nonpartisan mission.
Yet, amid the turmoil, FBI leaders insist they remain committed to the bureau’s core mission: protecting Americans from crime, terrorism, and espionage.
The deputy director insists the agency has “never been stronger”—a message aimed at reassuring both agents and the public that the FBI can weather this political storm.
Still, as one former senior official remarked, “Without trust, all the stats in the world mean nothing. A badge doesn’t automatically mean legitimacy. It has to be earned every day.”
Looking ahead: Can both sides be right?
As America barrels deeper into an era of political division and geopolitical uncertainty, the stakes for the FBI have rarely been higher. It stands not only as the country’s primary shield against crime and terrorism but also as a mirror reflecting the tensions tearing at the fabric of American democracy.
On paper, the bureau is boasting unprecedented success.
Yet beneath the surface, the costs of these victories remain fiercely debated. Critics warn that purging seasoned leadership, prioritising politically driven agendas, and transforming the FBI into a tool of partisan loyalty could undermine the very security the bureau claims to protect.
For everyday Americans, the debate boils down to a fundamental question: Can they trust the FBI to remain an impartial guardian of law and justice, or is it becoming an instrument of political power?
Within the bureau’s own corridors, anxiety simmers.
Agents who dedicated their careers to quiet intelligence work now find themselves scrutinised for political loyalties. Veterans are leaving in droves, and a chilling uncertainty hangs over the ranks.
The next chapter for the FBI remains unwritten. Whether it emerges stronger, reformed, and trusted—or weakened, fractured, and mistrusted—will depend on choices made in the months ahead.
What’s certain is that the bureau now stands at a historic crossroads, where every decision could shape not just its future, but the future of American democracy itself.
