FBI Agents Sue DOJ to Protect Identities of Those Who Worked on Jan. 6
“Plaintiffs were instructed to fill out a survey that would identify their specific role in the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.”

Nine FBI agents sued the DOJ to protect the identities of agents who worked the January 6 and Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigations.
The agents filed the class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution— Retaliation Based on Perceived Political Affiliation
- Violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution – Violation of Plaintiffs’ Substantive and Procedural Due Process Rights
- Violation of the Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Right to Privacy
- Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a (b)
I cannot take the agents seriously because they claimed the rioters at the Capitol did so “at the behest of Donald Trump.”
Now they fear President Donald Trump’s DOJ will target them:
Upon returning to the Presidency, Mr. Trump has ordered the DOJ to conduct a review and purge of FBI personnel involved in these investigations and prosecutions. This directive is unlawful and retaliatory, and violates the Civil Service Reform Act 5 U.S.C. §§2301 and 2303.
Additionally, on or about February 2, 2025, Plaintiffs were instructed to fill out a survey that would identify their specific role in the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases. Some Plaintiffs were required to fill out the survey themselves, others were told that their supervisors would be filling out the form. Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated information is going to be forwarded to upper management. Plaintiffs assert that the purpose for this list is to identify agents to be terminated or to suffer other adverse employment action. Plaintiffs reasonably fear that all or parts of this list might be published by allies of President Trump, thus placing themselves and their families in immediate danger of retribution by the now pardoned and at-large Jan. 6 convicted felons. Defendant’s gathering, retention, and disclosure of Plaintiffs’ activities related the acts of former President Trump is a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendments to the Constitution. It is also a violation of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment substantive and due process rights, such that the Court has the authority to enjoin the serious harm it is likely to cause. Moreover, the publication or dissemination of the information in these surveys would be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a, and would place Plaintiffs in immediate risk of serious harm. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the publication or dissemination of these surveys, or any information derived therefrom.
“Plaintiffs assert that the specific purpose of this survey is to identify agents and other FBI personnel to be terminated as a form of politically motivated retribution,” according to the lawsuit.
The “facts” in the lawsuit include that the rioters “appeared at the Capitol, and engaged in violent action at the urging and direct request of Donald Trump.”
The agents also insisted:
It is also undisputed that while Donald Trump was keenly aware of the violence taking place at the Capitol on that day, for hours he did nothing to intercede or persuade the Jan. 6 Rioters to cease their activity.
Information obtained during the investigation of the Jan. 6 attack also established that Mr. Trump was an active participant in the planning of the attack on the Capitol, and of the coordinated effort by some members of Congress to evade certification of the election results.
“Plaintiffs assert that the very act of compiling lists of persons who worked on matters that upset Donald Trump is retaliatory in nature, intended to intimidate FBI agents and other personnel, and to discourage them from reporting any future malfeasance and by Donald Trump and his
agents,” the agents said in the lawsuit.
The agents also fear that people without proper clearance will have access to their private information.
They think that even if the DOJ doesn’t target them for termination, “they may face other retaliatory acts such as demotion, denial of job opportunities or denial of promotions in the future.”

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Since the FBI is under the DOJ, how can they hide the information from their boss? Is there another case like it where a subordinate sued to prevent their boss from learning work-related information?
When Alice was in Wonderland she came across something like that, but before she fell down the rabbit hole it had never been heard of.
I think Trump is pulling America out of the rabbit hole.
He’s using ,a href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgztUzqaL3E”>Rodenator to expose it all first.
Dagnabit. I should have proofread before clicking submit…
I gotta get me one of those, for my actual moles that have benefiting too much from my garden.
Thank you for this. You made my life better!
The fears about retaliation (which might be justified, but assuming it’s not) is asking for pre-crime restraint. DOJ’s current management has done nothing wrong. How can a court step into the interal operations — of DOJ no less — and prevent a boss from collecting operational information from their subordinate?
The case is bizarre.
with the corrupt DC courts, they will do what is necessary to protect the SWAMP
Fire everyone involved in the lawsuit too
You can bet that they were and are going to be fired.
Notice how their claims are more or less the same as what they did to others.
After being fired, they should be prosecuted for thei crimes.
The poor, little Cheka thugs are worried about consequences. Pobrecitos.
I hope they’re imprisoned and destitute.
It’s all fun and games when they’re digging through the First Lady’s underwear drawer. Payback is a Hillary.
” to protect the identities of agents who worked the January 6 and Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigations”
“Your honor, we’re all in the same profession,”
https://image.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/photos/64743253/display_1500/stock-photo-faenza-ra-italy-november-executioner-with-pillory-axe-execution-block-historical-re-64743253.jpg
if only!
Violation of the Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Right to Privacy
You don’t HAVE a right to privacy in your government work product. Period. And if you were doing anything more than incidental personal business (“Yes, dear, I’ll be home on time tonight.” “How about we go out to George’s after work this afternoon?”) with government resources then you’re in violation of gov’t policy. Heck, it’s on your friggin’ login screen when you start your computer up each day.
or as the Dems like to say, “If you have nothing to hide,…..”
I was going to go off on that one, too. But you beat me to it. 🙂
Here’s the text, as re-typed from a gov’t computer (emphasis added):
So, unless they’re claiming to be clergy hearing people’s confessions, they ain’t got no right to privacy on a gov’t computer. And they’re not allowed to be doing work on a non-government computer.
I worked at a Fortune 500 company and we had basically the same type of info at log in. If you’re working on our equipment, anything you do here belongs to us..it’s not private.
Only your PII is protected–personal info, social security number, etc. NEVER work products. Everyone who works in a federal agency knows this (or should).
And even PII is authorized to be stored for proper gov’t needs. And used for those needs.
So, not being a lawyer, I’m a little unclear on this: Can the claiming membership in the class be identified to the defendants?
If so, they’re making it easy. By claiming membership of the class they are proclaiming that they took actions related to the Jan 6 prosecutions that could get them fired.
So, fire them all.
No need for questionnaires or messy investigations or anything. Clean sweep.
There are only nine plaintiffs. There were a lot more agents involved in these shenanigans who need to be identified so they can be fired.
Oh…got it. I assumed the class was much bigger.
Anyway, 9 is a start. Fire them first.
Your employer has every right to know what you’re doing
ESPECIALLY when you work for the gov’t.
This is very interesting. I would love to have a knowledgable lawyer do am analysis please.
If these agents were doing work as instructed by their supervisors, I wonder what basis they would actually have to refuse to specify what that work was.
I am also rather surprised to see: “Violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution— Retaliation Based on Perceived Political Affiliation”
Does this imply that all the Agents involved were Democrats? If so…..wow. This would set up an interesting Hatch Act violation scenario.
I also believe that the “Fifth Amendment Right To Privacy” claim is a pretty darn big stretch claiming to applies what Agents were doing AT WORK.
But I am just some guy on the internet who really know nothing about the law.
I really want somebody who knows what they’re talking about (Hint Dr Jacobson!) to go through all this….please?
See https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/02/court-tosses-faculty-for-justice-in-palestine-mccarthyism-lawsuit-against-upenn/
In which the judge dismissed (with prejudice) an amended suit for “lack of standing and failure to state a claim, finding (plaintiffs) still had failed to allege more than speculative harm.”
…on company time. If they refuse to answer, assume they did nothing and fire them for low productivity.
I prefer that they are prosecuted for doing something, losing their assets, exiting jail as paupers. Their conduct merits severe consequences. Their fall from grace will go down in history.
Suing runs the risk it will get to the Supreme Court and set a precedent.
Fun FBI story:
I did an internship with a federal agency in college. I needed a place to stay so I was referred to another federal employee who had a room in her apartment. One of the roommates was having an affair with the very married head of the FBI office in that state. The first I witnessed him staying overnight he took me aside and let me know in no uncertain terms that I didn’t see or hear anything – capeech? I haven’t had respect for “special agents” since.
For the first 136 years of our nation’s existence we did not have an FBI.
I suggest that we return to that status.
There’s nothing that the FBI does (other than stomp on civil rights at the behest of the democrat party) that cannot and should be done by the states.
The FBI of television and movies never existed.
I believe that one thing the FBI does that cannot be done by the states is crimes that cross state lines.
That’s not to say that I support the FBI and what they have done (especially recently) but I can see situations where they are needed.
I lived in a city where City Council members were taking bribes and the money was heading out of state. The City law enforcement could not do anything because it would let the Council people know the law was looking at them.
The state agency could only investigate what crimes were within the state.
The FBI came in and were able to look at the whole set up because it crossed state lines.
That part could be done by US Marshalls.
I don’t why they’re assuming the worst without considering alternative explanations. Maybe Trump just wants a list of people so they can work in the white house, escort dignitaries and get their picture taken. Whenever they have time they could go back to prosecuting cases or flying Black Hawk helicopters or whatever.
The idea that the Privacy Act is some kind of shield towards scrutiny of on-the-job performance is absolutely laughable.
That and the classification rules all have built in that they are NOT to be used to keep investigators away or shield people from embarrassment, etc.
LOL, I guess they are CYA. Fun stuff. They may self implode.
Just start by getting witness lists and reports from defense attorneys in the Jan 6 cases.
Who knew the FBI had so many whiney little twits working there?!
Ephraim Zim-zer-zem, Junior.
Well-played!
It is also undisputed that while Donald Trump was keenly aware of the violence taking place at the Capitol on that day, for hours he did nothing to intercede or persuade the Jan. 6 Rioters to cease their activity.
And wisely so. Had Trump appeared at the Capitol, or had he sent a message to the rioters, and was successful in quelling the disturbance, his success would have later been cited as “proof” that he had directed and controlled the mob from the beginning.
No, sir. Protection of the Capitol is the responsibility of Congress, not the POTUS. The best the POTUS can do is offer troops, an offer that was made and rejected, and later denied by his detractors. These snakes would make a crime out of any of Trump’s actions, if they could.
Max flak achieved.
Open bomb bay doors.
These agents think they’re special.
A common affliction, I think. It goes along with the fallacious belief that they are on the side of the angels.
Seems to me that First Amendment protections do not extend to actions undertaken and statements made in their official capacity as government agents.
If their investigative activities were performed in the course of their official duties and as part of an official, duly authorized investigation, I’m not sure how their due process rights are implicated.
I might accept claims of privacy protections regarding home addresses, etc., but I’m not sure how they think they’re entitled to anonymity if they were acting in their official capacity as federal agents and pursuant to a lawful investigation.
Can some of you lawyers help this layman understand, please?
Unless they’re implying that their actions were driven by their political beliefs, and that their actions are therefor political in nature and beyond the authority of government per the First Amendment.
A stupid argument, I know, but there aren’t too many ways to interpret their claim, all of them not terribly smart.
Can some of you lawyers help this layman understand, please?
As a non-lawyer, but one who has studied a tiny bit of law and spent years perusing and absorbing the Constitution, I will say you’ve got it fairly well covered.
The lawsuit has very little chance of success. It’s purpose is merely to give the swamp another talking point against The Fascist Regime. Witch hunt! Political retaliation!
It’s not meant to actually protect the people involved. It’s intended to be a rallying cry, which will mostly be used to raise funds for more lawsuits.
I disagree a little bit insomuch that the lawsuit has very little long term chance of prevailing. But, look at how the DC District and Circuit Courts have behaved the last eight years. There’s not a single judge in that District who gave the J6ers a fair shake. Some of the most far-left, loonie lawyers have ended up with judicial appointments on that District and Circuit court. I suspect they’ll probably get a temporary injunction and that injunction very well may be sustained by the DC Circuit Court. And even if it isn’t, they still have a likelihood of prevailing at trial. The appellate process will then take 2/3-years to fully litigate. I hope I’m wrong. But, I don’t think anyone should expect rational jurisprudence from that specific group of judges.
One of the terrible J6 judges was Royce Lamberth, who is very far from being a “far-left, loonie lawyer”. He’s the exact opposite of that, which is why I had a lot of respect for him for years, until he started hearing the J6 cases. I don’t know what got into him, but I can’t respect him any more.
Given the relationship of the judges to the entire fiasco (and I’m being kind) the government has a very good argument for a change of venue. As to whether they can get that to happen is not based on law so much as the political powers involved.
if what they did on the J6 cases was so pure and righteous, then it stands to reason that they would want to have their identities known to their superiors!
Or maybe they’re ashamed of it.
Bottom line, the government gets to know what’s employees have been doing with their time.
That’s some rich bullshit there. They trample on the Constitutional protections of US citizens , denying them due process, and now go screaming for the very protections they failed to afford to others.
Fire every agent. Every single damned one of them. Do a complete USAID on the whole place. Lock them out. Take their firearms and shield.
Every agent is complicit in the denial of due process, whether active or passive. Not a single damned one of them should be trusted.
Roll the FBI into another department and then force all agents to reapply for their jobs.
Fûck all of them.
Can I sue to keep my boss from seeing if I did the job or not? lol
Only if you are an FBLiar
This filing is nothing more than a long winded political screed. Pure hyperbole, with a lot of amateurish legal phraseology thrown in to make it sound good. Laughable
This is the attitude that demonstrates why the denizens of the Deep State have to be purged. These agents (Stasi wannabes?) don’t think their bosses—ultimately the people—have any “right” to know what they were involved in doing and especially not if such actions were abuses of power.
Leave a Comment