Some of President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet picks have been surprising. Will his pick for Federal Bureau of Investigation director equally surprising?
Rumors of FBI Director Christopher Wray retiring before inauguration day are probably correct. But while Trump supporters may hope for a hard-charging disruptor to clean house at the FBI, others worry he will appoint a blind loyalist bent on exacting revenge.
However, the right candidate can be the disruptor the FBI needs while restoring its reputation as an efficient, effective and apolitical agency. Trump’s biggest surprise should be to name a professional law enforcement officer or even a current or former FBI special agent as director.
Such a pick would go against current thinking. Since 1978, all five FBI directors have been former judges or Department of Justice officials, with only Louis Freeh having spent time as an FBI agent.
The FBI workforce always respected this experience and wondered why the top job usually went to career attorneys. Police chiefs and commissioners mostly come from the ranks of law enforcement. Why should the FBI be any different? The role lawyers play at the top of American politics is the likely culprit, but given the Bureau’s recent history, it’s time to rethink that idea.
The FBI, with 35,000 employees and a budget exceeding $11 billion, covers a wider range of criminal and national security issues than most similar organizations, domestic or foreign. Most judges and attorneys have never approached managing an organization of this size and complexity.
Moreover, law enforcement requires skills and mindsets distinct from those honed by writing briefs and courtroom advocacy. For example, while Department of Justice attorneys draft the deadly force policy, it falls to the FBI to implement it by selecting the right firearms and training agents on the various scenarios where they may need to use deadly force.
The discussion between the Justice Department and FBI officials over conducting the Mar-a-Lago search highlights the disconnect in how prosecutors and law enforcement sometimes approach tricky real-world scenarios. A director with law enforcement experience understands this and other practical law enforcement challenges. Such insight will be necessary if a Trump-appointed attorney general hopes to implement reforms at the FBI.
That the FBI needs fixing is almost universally accepted. Each new scandal elicits the same weary reaction from retired and current agents alike: “Not again.” Half the country sees the FBI as “Biden’s Gestapo,” and even apolitical Americans question its ability to be impartial Whether these perceptions are fair is secondary; they exist, and Trump’s election has set the stage for change.
One reform might include reorienting the Bureau’s focus from Washington back to field operations — a strategy Director Freeh implemented during his tenure. Others are sure to be more controversial. An experienced law enforcement leader untainted by recent Justice Department controversies has a better chance to implement effective reforms while lessening accusations of politicization. Any Trump appointee will face that accusation, but that accusation will be even stronger if a former Justice Department attorney is nominated as director.
Unlike most officials at Justice, the FBI director is a political appointee with a ten-year term, designed to span presidencies and shield the Bureau from political interference. Yet truly being apolitical in Washington is nearly impossible. Ironically, appointing FBI directors from the ranks of Justice Department attorneys has brought more, not less, political intrigue to the Bureau.
A law enforcement professional, on the other hand, could better insulate the Bureau from shifting political winds at Justice and bring the Bureau’s focus back to its core mission of investigations and operations.
But should the FBI truly be independent of the Justice Department? Its relationship with the department is akin to the Marine Corps’ relationship with the Navy — technically subordinate, yet culturally and operationally distinct.
Some on the political right argue the FBI should be more politically accountable, as outlined in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. While accountability is necessary, the FBI is not just another federal agency. It investigates crimes at the highest levels of government and conducts background checks for political appointees. These responsibilities affect both political parties and often fuel claims of bias. A director with law enforcement experience will better navigate these challenges than a Justice Department attorney or political operative.
This isn’t to disparage Director Wray or his predecessors. Since post-Watergate reforms, FBI directors have faced the nearly impossible task of having to be seen as apolitical while handling politically sensitive investigations. Of course, no director is guaranteed success, not even one with law enforcement experience.
Critics who wish to abolish the FBI or view all its problems through an anti-Trump lens will not be swayed by the director’s qualifications. Yet, for those of us who still believe in the Bureau’s mission while recognizing the need for change, a law enforcement professional at the top could be the best surprise of all.
Christopher M. Donohue is a retired FBI agent.
