Newly released FOIA records reveal FBI Director Kash Patel directed his public affairs team to identify social media accounts criticizing him and respond with bureau statistics, a move that raises questions about how the nation's top law enforcement agency spends its time.
The records, part of the latest tranche of government materials released in connection with the Jeffrey Epstein file review, contain a text exchange between Patel and the FBI's assistant director for public affairs dated February 5. In the exchange, Patel pushed back against the suggestion that online criticism came from bot accounts, then reminded his aide of a standing order to find those accounts and post the FBI's "record year results" back at them.
The Daily Caller reported on the records after journalist Andrew Kaczynski flagged them on X, formerly Twitter. The FBI offered "no comment" when asked about the exchange.
The text exchange shows Patel citing "277k responses" to a social media post and insisting they were not generated by bots. His public affairs aide pushed back on that figure, explaining that the number reflected views, not actual engagement.
"That's views, it's 400 responses; a real visible tweet gets 5x that," the unnamed assistant director wrote.
Patel was not persuaded. He reminded the aide of his instructions in blunt terms:
"What I asked you and your team to do is find them, and post our record year results back at them all, continuously."
He then framed the effort as a visibility strategy rather than a personal grudge, writing: "it's not about them, it is about the number of views, because people see it and need to be seeing our stats."
Whatever the stated rationale, the directive amounted to the FBI director instructing career staff to monitor and engage with individual social media users who criticized him. That is an unusual use of a federal public affairs office, which typically handles press inquiries, official statements, and public safety announcements, not social media counter-punching.
Patel's tenure as FBI director has already drawn scrutiny from multiple directions. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican, privately demanded Patel account for travel expenses and BMW purchases, and the Secret Service publicly rebuked him earlier for disclosing details of a drone-attack investigation before arrests were complete.
The exchange also reveals the assistant director flagging a specific social media account that Patel had apparently shared. The aide described it as an "Epstein didn't kill himself bot account" and offered to show Patel "where it's coming from."
More pointedly, the aide warned Patel against engaging with another account called "RetardFinder," telling the director that responding to it would "look bad" on him. The warning suggests that at least some FBI staff recognized the reputational risk of the director's approach, even if they did not refuse the underlying directive.
Kaczynski, who covers politics and online media, posted about the records on September 11, writing on X: "I can't believe this is real." He noted that the documents had been flagged by Seth Hettena. The FOIA records themselves were released as part of the broader government review of Epstein-related materials, a review that has made its own set of political controversies.
Patel has faced pointed questions about the FBI's handling of the Epstein files. At a September 2025 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana pressed the director on whether the convicted sex offender had trafficked women to anyone other than himself. Patel told Kennedy the information available to the FBI was "limited" and that there was "no credible information" indicating Epstein had trafficked victims to other individuals.
That testimony drew attention at the time, and the ongoing release of Epstein-related records continues to create public interest. The fact that these same FOIA releases also captured Patel's internal text messages about social media critics adds an unexpected dimension to the document dumps.
The Secret Service's earlier rebuke of Patel over premature disclosure of an active investigation pointed to a pattern of the director prioritizing public messaging over operational discipline. The social media directive revealed in these FOIA records fits that pattern, an FBI director more focused on controlling the narrative around his own image than on the quiet, methodical work the bureau is supposed to do.
The September 2025 hearing remains significant context. Kennedy noted that Patel had reviewed most of the Epstein files and pressed him on whether those records contained evidence of other individuals receiving trafficking victims. Patel's answer, that there was "no credible information", satisfied some observers and frustrated others who believed the FBI was sitting on material the public deserved to see.
Congressional oversight of the FBI has intensified from both sides of the aisle in recent years. Rep. Jim Jordan has accused the bureau of using operations as political shields and obstructing Congress, while Republicans who initially championed Patel's appointment have grown quieter as controversies accumulate.
The FOIA records do not show whether the FBI's public affairs team actually carried out Patel's directive to post results back at his critics. They do not identify the specific accounts Patel wanted targeted beyond the two referenced in the exchange. And the FBI's "no comment" response to the Daily Caller leaves the public without any official explanation of what the director intended or whether the practice continued.
Conservatives rightly spent years demanding accountability from an FBI that surveilled political opponents, manipulated FISA warrants, and treated its institutional preferences as law. Those demands did not come with a carve-out for directors who happen to be on our side. The standard is the standard, and an FBI director using staff time to chase social media critics fails it.
