Swalwell Warns FBI Agents: Come Forward or Face Subpoenas From Dem House

Swalwell Warns FBI Agents: Come Forward or Face Subpoenas From Dem House

Although the Trump administration has denied that former Attorney General Pam Bondi was fired because she tipped off Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) to the FBI’s planned release of files about his relationship with Chinese spy Christine Fang, someone alerted him, and it sure has made him nervous.

His attorneys issued a cease-and-desist letter to FBI Director Kash Patel last week, demanding a halt to the release of files. The letter alleged that releasing these documents violates the Privacy Act and constitutes a politically motivated move to impact the California governor’s race.

Swalwell believes the FBI has been weaponized against Democrats and that bureau leadership may be trying to undermine his chances in the upcoming California gubernatorial race. He also claims the Department of Justice has withheld information on the Epstein files, raising concerns about transparency and potential corruption.

During an interview last week with CNN host Kate Bolduan, the California congressman issued a warning to any FBI agents involved in what he alleges is a conspiracy. He openly threatened agents who don’t “come forward right now” that they will be subpoenaed when the Democrats win back control of the House in November.

Swalwell is now threatening to haul FBI agents who don’t “come forward right now” before congress if Democrats retake the House:

“To the FBI agents who are being asked to break the law every single day. What we want to make clear, and I know this comes from Jamie Raskin and… pic.twitter.com/1BmREOMsVN

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) April 3, 2026

Swalwell said:

And it’s not just all that’s going to come out on Epstein, it’s all going to come out on how they’ve weaponized the Department of Justice against the president’s political opponents.

And so, to the FBI agents who are being asked to break the law every single day, what we want to make clear — and I know this comes from Jamie Raskin and Robert Garcia who will have the subpoena power next Congress — you will be protected if you come forward right now.

If you do not come forward right now and you enable more corruption on Epstein or the weaponization, you will be before Congress, and it will all come out.

To her credit, CNN host Kate Bolduan asked what evidence he had to show that FBI agents “are being asked to break the law every single day.”

“Well, this Washington Post reporting and New York Times reporting that they are being asked to essentially collude with the Chinese government to interfere in the California governor’s race,” he replied.

“We’ve heard about the efforts to fire FBI agents who do not want to see them doing immigration raids or scrubbing — uh, you know, the Epstein files to protect Donald Trump. They’re being moved — you know — over to do that.”

[Reminder to Swalwell: The Biden administration had total access to the Epstein files for four years.]

Asked for evidence, Swalwell cited reporting from the Washington Post and the New York Times. Yes, the same media outlets that spent years claiming President Donald Trump was an agent of Russia, the Hunter Biden laptop story was part of a Russian disinformation campaign, former President Joe Biden was “sharp as a tack,” and demonized the lab-leak theory of COVID-19 origins as a conspiracy.

Swalwell has always been one of Trump’s most vocal critics and has a long record of playing fast and loose with the truth. His public pronouncements of Trump’s guilt during the days of the Russian collusion hoax were second only to those from then-Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA).

But he is best known for his romantic involvement with a Chinese woman in the early 2010s named Christine Fang, AKA “Fang Fang,” who turned out to be a spy for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Following a lengthy investigation, Axios broke the story in December 2020 that Swalwell had been targeted by what “U.S. officials believe was a political intelligence operation run by China’s main civilian spy agency between 2011 and 2015.” The report says she “took part in fundraising activity” for Swalwell’s 2014 campaign and even “helped place at least one intern in Swalwell’s office.”

According to Axios:

Amid a widening counterintelligence probe, federal investigators became so alarmed by Fang’s behavior and activities that around 2015 they alerted Swalwell to their concerns — giving him what is known as a defensive briefing.

Swalwell immediately cut off all ties to Fang, according to a current U.S. intelligence official, and he has not been accused of any wrongdoing.

Fang left the country unexpectedly in mid-2015 amid the investigation. She did not respond to multiple attempts by Axios to reach her by email and Facebook.

At the time of Swalwell’s defensive briefing, he was a member of the House Intelligence Committee. In that capacity, he had access to some highly sensitive intelligence. Yet, despite his years-long involvement with a Chinese spy, he remained on the committee until then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) stripped him of his membership in January 2023.

A sitting congressman’s relationship with a Chinese intelligence operative speaks to his judgment. Swalwell’s claim that he was unaware she was a spy speaks to his intelligence.

California voters, in particular, have a right to view the files before they head to the polls in November to elect a new governor.

But being the blowhard Swalwell is, he’s trying to keep the files sealed. He’s decided that a good defense is a good offense. The instructive phrase is “a good offense.” Citing the Washington Post and the New York Times as arbiters of truth was a bad idea. So too were they fabricating a new hoax or threatening FBI agents with subpoenas in the next Democrat-controlled Congress.

And even Kate Bolduan knew that.

Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.