A recent report by the nonprofit advocacy group America First Legal (AFL) has brought to light the FBI’s alleged bias during background investigations of President Donald Trump’s nominees. According to the report, the FBI’s investigations during Trump’s tenure were tilted in favor of those who were politically opposed to him.
According to the AFL’s findings, the federal background investigation process is flawed. The September 14 report alleges that the FBI consistently violated the Privacy Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act, among other laws, during the Trump Administration. The report claims that certain FBI agents in Washington, D.C., deliberately undermined Trump’s potential appointees by selectively reporting unverified, negative information.
The AFL report points out that during Trump’s administration, the FBI handed over files to the Senate without filtering out uncorroborated allegations. The Senate received raw, unedited information, which the White House passed on to the relevant Senate committees.
One of the most notable examples cited in the report is Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In 2018, amid concerns about potential misconduct by Kavanaugh during his younger years, the Senate Judiciary Committee requested a supplemental FBI investigation. Despite Kavanaugh’s eventual confirmation and no evidence of wrongdoing, Senate Democrats later criticized the FBI’s investigation as insufficient.
The report also highlights that the White House or the Senate can influence the background investigation process, suggesting potential bias. Several of Trump’s nominees, including Representative Darrell Issa, Representative Ronny Jackson, Judge Sul Ozerden, Jeffrey Byard, and William Bryan, faced challenges based on issues arising from FBI background investigations.
The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy (OLP) works in tandem with the FBI on background investigations for law enforcement and court appointees. After the Clinton administration faced accusations of using privacy to target political rivals, the OLP set rules to prevent such incidents. However, under the Biden administration, these protective measures were reportedly revoked.
The Privacy Act of 1974 outlines practices for federal agencies regarding collecting and disseminating individual information. The AFL report indicates that the FBI did not adhere to several requirements of the Privacy Act during background checks for judicial nominees. New regulations under the Biden administration reportedly allow the White House to guide the FBI’s investigations without the written consent of the nominees.
Furthermore, the White House and the FBI can now share these investigations outside the Executive Branch without notification.
AFL vice president and general counsel Gene Hamilton stressed the importance of the Senate providing proper advice and consent to presidential nominees. He believes the current background investigation process deprives the President and the American public of this right, underscoring the need for reform.
The issue of federal department politicization is a growing concern among lawmakers. Special Counsel John Durham’s report on the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign found deficiencies in the agency’s handling in May. Additionally, certain FBI officials, like Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, were identified as having a clear animosity towards Trump in the report.
Following the Durham report, House Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner advocated for new measures to ensure the FBI’s accountability. He stressed the need for Congress to establish clear boundaries to prevent future FBI misconduct and rebuild public trust in law enforcement.
In a related development, House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer issued subpoenas to six officials from the Biden administration. This was in response to allegations that the Secret Service informed the Biden transition team about an upcoming interview with Hunter Biden concerning his tax investigation. Comer criticized the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security for their roles in the matter, labeling it a clear example of politicization during the DOJ’s investigation into the President’s son.