Biden-Era FBI’s Shocking Overreach Revealed

FBI seal displayed on the exterior of a government building

The Biden-era FBI quietly subpoenaed the phone records of two private citizens who now run the FBI and the White House—raising fresh questions about how far federal power was stretched during the Trump investigations.

Quick Take

The FBI subpoenaed phone records tied to Kash Patel and Susie Wiles in 2022–2023 during Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Trump investigations.
The records were found in FBI files labeled “Prohibited,” and Patel says the setup was used to evade normal oversight and visibility.
Patel disclosed the subpoenas in late February 2026 and moved to end the “Prohibited” file categorization inside the bureau.
Patel also fired personnel connected to the Trump classified-documents probe, with reporting varying from “a handful” to at least 10 people.

What the FBI Took—and When

Federal investigators subpoenaed phone records associated with Kash Patel—now FBI Director—and Susie Wiles—now President Trump’s White House chief of staff—during 2022 and 2023, when both were private citizens. The subpoenas were tied to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into Trump’s post-2020 election actions and the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Reporting indicates investigators obtained records used for timeline verification, not the content of calls.

That distinction matters, but it does not end the controversy. Phone-record subpoenas can still map who talked to whom, when, and how often—information that can reveal networks and strategies even without call content. Patel has characterized the subpoenas as “outrageous” and “deeply alarming,” arguing the bureau acted under “flimsy pretexts.” Smith, for his part, previously maintained the record seizures followed legal requirements, underscoring the dispute over process and justification.

“Prohibited” Files and the Oversight Problem

The most explosive detail is where the paperwork ended up. The phone-record subpoenas were reportedly located in FBI files labeled “Prohibited,” a category that drew scrutiny because it can restrict internal visibility. Reuters reporting cited in the research indicates “Prohibited” files could be used to evade oversight, a concern that resonates with Americans who watched years of politically charged investigations unfold with limited transparency and uneven accountability.

In late February 2026, Patel said he ended the “Prohibited” file categorization inside the FBI. That internal change may sound technical, but it’s directly connected to a constitutional pressure point: when law enforcement surveillance tools are used in politically sensitive probes, the public’s baseline expectation is strict controls, clear documentation, and real supervisory review. If a file label effectively walls off scrutiny, reform is not just administrative—it’s fundamental.

Firings, Conflicting Counts, and What’s Confirmed

Patel’s disclosure was paired with personnel action. Fox News reported that at least a handful of FBI employees were fired after the subpoenas were surfaced. CNN reporting cited in the research said at least 10 were ousted and tied the removals to the Trump classified-documents probe. The precise number and identities have not been fully detailed in the provided material, which limits independent verification beyond what these outlets reported.

Those removals are already part of a broader storyline. The research notes prior disputes and lawsuits alleging retaliatory terminations connected to Trump-related investigations. That mix—discipline, litigation, and internal shake-ups—creates a difficult reality for the bureau: leadership has to prove it can clean house without turning accountability into politicized purges. For citizens who value equal justice under law, consistency and documented standards will matter as much as outcomes.

How This Fits the Broader Trump-Investigation Arc

The subpoenas occurred while Jack Smith pursued two major Trump tracks: election-related actions after 2020 and the Mar-a-Lago documents case. Trump was charged in 2023, but those cases were later dismissed after Trump returned to the presidency, consistent with longstanding Department of Justice policy against prosecuting a sitting president. That legal posture did not erase the record of investigative steps taken while Trump allies were in the private sector.

Patel’s public framing also reflects a longer-running conservative critique: that powerful federal institutions can drift into “weaponized” behavior when politics, secrecy, and expansive investigative authorities combine. The research also notes historical debates over FISA errors and past oversight failures, though it does not establish that this specific subpoena episode involved unlawful conduct. What it does show is a process fight—over scope, safeguards, and internal transparency—that will shape whether Americans regain trust in federal law enforcement.