During the Neronian era, Gaius Petronius Arbiter described the process of relentless organizational change in Roman society as illusory progress, and warned it served only to produce confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
In modern America, we expect some form of political change next week. On Tuesday, voters will determine whether or not President Trump achieves a mandate on his #MAGA agenda, or his opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, will usher in the culmination of #Resistance efforts to unseat him. Either way, expect seismic changes in the future of our democracy.
But across its 112-year existence, one governmental institution has remained steadfastly resistant to change for the sake of change: the FBI. Often accused of being as staid and predictable as its historical special agent attire of dark business suits, wingtip shoes, and fedoras, the conservative bureau has recently attempted to change its image related to the diversity of its workforce and the manner in which it opens cases or targets suspected criminality.
It is also still dealing with sanitization of the irreparable damage done by James Comey. Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017. At the time, like many retired agents mesmerized by Comey’s cult of personality, I fumed and felt Comey had been unfairly victimized. As more facts came to light with time, as they often do, I know it was a righteous decision: Comey had to go.
Yet, Trump has also flirted publicly with relieving Christopher Wray, Trump’s hand-picked choice to replace Comey, of his duties over the past year. It would be a disastrous decision. Trump can be petty, petulant, and vindictive. And when autonomous members of the executive branch make decisions counter to his feelings, he lashes out in vituperative, mean-spirited ways.
If the president is reelected, he will be emboldened. Imagine Trump truly unleashed. He will view the post-election termination of Wray as further divestment from (what he refers to as) the deep state. His supporters will reflexively cheer the move — somehow blaming Wray for only one criminal indictment arising from the bungled, mismanaged, and in certain cases, rank partisanship inherent in FBI decision-making during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into 2016 Russian election-meddling.
To further war-game this scenario, let’s imagine a Biden victory on Tuesday. Does the president-elect decide to keep Wray on as a purposeful thumb in Trump’s eye? Or does he decide to clean house, ridding the entire government of any essence of Trump’s imprimatur?
Removing Wray, whether it’s done by Trump or Biden, would have a deleterious effect on the morale and effectiveness of the FBI.
It is not simple crowing to suggest that the FBI deserves its reputation as the world’s premier law enforcement agency. Much of that hard-earned legacy relates to innovative law enforcement techniques and tactics it has developed across more than a century of anticipatory countermoves to combat criminals, subversives, terrorists, and spies.
Much of that success can be attributed to the stubborn implacability of the bureau. The fedoras and the zoot suits may be gone, and the public’s perception of what an FBI agent “looks like” has blessedly evolved, but the dogged, irrepressible nature of its individual investigators and the agency’s ability to adapt to an ever-evolving threat matrix is what truly sets the FBI apart.
Firing Wray would further disrupt an agency that continues to rebuild its reputation and morale during the post-Comey era. A senior FBI official with clearance to speak on the matter advised me that “major law enforcement associations representing current and former FBI agents as well as police and sheriff’s departments across the country have consistently expressed their full support of Director Wray’s leadership of the Bureau.” And while privately, some former agents grumble that they wish Wray would do more publicly to defend the bureau or be more forthcoming in providing documents to the Durham investigators, they must understand that Wray is following the compliance guidance of FBI and DOJ lawyers. They also comprehend that following the “Comey Show” — which continues unabated during an impending second book launch and sympathetic Hollywood treatment — the last thing the FBI needs is more attention.
There have only been eight Senate-confirmed FBI directors in the bureau’s history. Its first, J. Edgar Hoover, served at the helm for 48 years. Only two directors have been fired by a president. The first was Judge William S. Sessions, who handed me my badge and credentials upon graduation from the FBI Academy on May 30, 1991, and was fired in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. The second was Comey.
Does Trump want to be identified as the president who fired two FBI directors, including one that he selected? And does Joe Biden, if he should win, want to further contribute to disruptive, detrimental turnover at the top of an agency that desperately seeks to reestablish its silent, sacrosanct compact with America, to investigate bereft of fear or favor?
Following Hoover’s death in 1972, Congress enacted a 10-year term limit for FBI directors. The purpose of this change was to protect against an imperial director, accountable to no one, and yet at the same time, shield the occupant of the office from partisan meddling.
Now more than ever, we need reassurance that this apolitical appointee be impervious to political influence. On Tuesday, we will either grapple with an unshackled Trump’s second term or confront the upheaval from the transition of power into a Biden administration. The last thing the FBI’s men and women on the front lines need impacting their mission to keep America safe is further irresolute, nonsensical, and detrimental change.
The FBI Agents Association, an organization dedicated to providing support and advocacy to active and former Special Agents of the FBI, took the unprecedented step today of sending letters to both presidential candidates, arguing that no matter the election outcome, this director has the full support and confidence of the majority within the active ranks, and should be allowed to complete his ten-year term.
Seriously, let’s heed the advice of the Roman courtier and avoid the “illusion of progress.”
Let Christopher Wray do his job. Leave him alone.
James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) worked in the FBI for 25 years. He is a law enforcement analyst for CNN and an adjunct assistant professor in homeland security and criminal justice at St. John’s University. Gagliano is a member of the board of directors of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund.
Update: The original piece has been updated to mention the letters from the FBI Agents Association.
