The FBI terminated four intelligence analysts and one supervisory analyst tied to a 2023 memo that linked traditional Catholic worship to violent extremism, the Guardian reported. The firings, which took place Friday, were confirmed by the employees' attorney, David Laufman, who called the action "manifestly unjust."
The five employees were connected to a January 2023 intelligence product out of the FBI's Richmond, Virginia, field office, a document that used the phrase "Radical Traditionalist Catholic" ideology and proposed "new avenues for tripwire and source development" inside houses of worship. The memo sought to examine what it described as a potential link between that ideology and "racially and ethnically motivated extremists." It also warned of the potential for violence.
In plain English: the federal government's premier law enforcement agency produced a document suggesting that certain Catholics who attend the Latin Mass might be domestic terror threats, and that the bureau should cultivate informants in their parishes.
When the Richmond memo became public in 2023, it landed like a grenade on Capitol Hill. Republicans in Congress cited it repeatedly as evidence that the FBI under President Joe Biden was targeting conservatives for their beliefs. Then-Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was "appalled" by the document. FBI leadership quickly condemned the memo's findings.
The bureau said the document was retracted promptly and that an internal review had been launched. That review, described in a 2023 letter to Congress, drew on interviews with 26 people. Its conclusion was damning on the merits, even if it stopped short of finding malice.
The review found that every individual involved in the memo's creation, review, and approval "failed to adhere to analytic tradecraft standards and failed to recognize that the product, as drafted, equated the subjects' interest in their self-described form of religion with racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist (RMVE) ideology without sufficient evidence or articulable support."
The review also stated the memo "created the appearance that the FBI conducts investigative activity based on religious affiliation." It invoked a bedrock principle: "One of the FBI's most fundamental principles is that investigative activity may not be based solely on the exercise of rights guaranteed by the first amendment."
A 2024 Justice Department inspector general report revisited the matter. It summarized the earlier FBI review and acknowledged the departures from proper analytic tradecraft. But it also concluded there was "no evidence of a malicious intent or an improper purpose."
That finding has become the central talking point for defenders of the fired analysts. Laufman leaned on it Friday, calling the firings "completely unsupported by the facts" and saying his clients' action "subverts standard FBI policy and procedure."
"These individuals deserved far better for the exceptional and faithful public service they rendered to protect our country."
The FBI declined to comment on the terminations.
But the inspector general's finding of no malicious intent does not erase what the bureau's own internal review already established: the analysts produced a product that failed basic tradecraft, lacked sufficient evidence, and treated religious practice as a proxy for extremist ideology. The absence of proven bad motive is not the same as the absence of serious professional failure.
FBI Director Kash Patel, who has made institutional accountability a hallmark of his tenure, oversaw the firings. The FBI offered no formal public explanation for the terminations.
The Richmond memo firings are not isolated. Since President Trump's second term began in early 2025, the FBI has moved to remove employees tied to conduct that drew congressional scrutiny or public controversy. In February, the bureau fired a group of counterintelligence agents who participated in the investigation into Trump over his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, after his first presidency.
The Justice Department has pursued similarly sweeping personnel actions against prosecutors. Patel himself has pushed out dozens of employees who either contributed to investigations of Trump or were perceived as misaligned with the administration's direction.
Each round of firings has drawn fierce pushback from defense attorneys, civil-liberties advocates, and Democratic lawmakers who frame the moves as political retaliation. Congressional Democrats have clashed with the administration over Patel's role at the bureau since before he was confirmed.
The media pressure on Patel has been relentless. Outlets have resurfaced decades-old personal history and published conduct allegations that Patel has forcefully denied. He called one such report "fake news" and threatened legal action against the publication responsible.
Earlier this year, anonymous reports suggested the White House might remove Patel from his post, claims the administration quickly pushed back on.
Meanwhile, the broader pressure campaign against Patel has done little to slow the pace of institutional reform at the bureau.
Laufman's defense of the fired analysts rests on two pillars: the inspector general's finding of no malicious intent, and the claim that the firings violate standard FBI procedure. Both deserve scrutiny.
On the first point, the inspector general did not clear the analysts of wrongdoing. The report acknowledged the tradecraft failures the FBI's own review had already documented. A federal employee who produces an intelligence product without sufficient evidence, one that equates religious practice with domestic terrorism, has committed a serious professional lapse, whether or not a prosecutor could prove the employee acted with malice.
On the second point, the claim that standard procedure was violated raises a fair question: what standard procedure existed for a case like this? The FBI's own review found that every person in the chain, from drafting to review to approval, failed. When an entire chain of command produces a product that, in the FBI's own words, appeared to authorize investigative activity based on religious affiliation, the standard disciplinary playbook may not be adequate.
Then-FBI Director Chris Wray repeatedly denied that the bureau was targeting conservatives during the Biden presidency. But the Richmond memo made that denial harder to sustain. It was not an offhand remark by a rogue agent. It was a formal intelligence product, reviewed and approved through internal channels, that proposed developing sources inside Catholic congregations.
The January 2023 Richmond memo was never just about five analysts in a Virginia field office. It was a window into how a powerful federal agency could treat constitutionally protected religious exercise as a threat indicator, and how that product could pass through layers of internal review without anyone raising a flag.
Republicans in Congress understood this immediately. The memo became Exhibit A in a broader argument about the politicization of federal law enforcement during the Biden era. The fact that the document was retracted after public exposure did not answer the harder question: how many similar products never became public?
The fired analysts may well have believed they were doing legitimate threat analysis. The inspector general found no evidence to the contrary. But the FBI's own review laid out the damage in unsparing terms: the memo lacked evidence, violated tradecraft standards, and created the appearance of religious targeting. Those are the bureau's own conclusions, not a partisan talking point.
Accountability for that kind of failure is not retaliation. It is the minimum a free society should expect from an agency that wields the investigative power of the federal government against its own citizens.
When the FBI starts treating Sunday Mass as a tripwire, someone ought to lose their job. Five people did.
