This is a version of The Atlantic Every day, a magazine that guides you through the top stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Register here.
During a Senate subcommittee hearing today, Democrats tried various ways to press FBI Director Kash Patel over reports about the bureau—about the politicization of law enforcement and his personal behavior—but it was a simple question from Sen. Chris Van Hollen at the end that provided the most definitive answer.
“Did you know it’s a crime to lie to Congress?” the Maryland Democrat asked.
Patel scowled and rummaged through the papers on his desk. “I have not lied to Congress,” he said. He accused the senator of lying. He refused to look up. But as Van Hollen pointed out, Patel kept repeating the real question.
“The FBI director doesn’t seem to want to answer the question about whether it’s a crime to lie to Congress, and I find that very troubling,” Van Hollen said. “You are a disgrace, Mr. Director.”
The exchange was the sharp end to a hearing that began with a dramatic exchange between Van Hollen and Patel but took a strange turn in the middle. The hearing, which also included leaders of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Armed Services, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, might have been a heated budget debate, except it was the senators’ first opportunity to question Patel about a series of recent media reports.
In mid-April, my colleague Sarah Fitzpatrick reported on concerns within the Trump administration about what FBI sources described as excessive drinking and unexcused absences. (In a follow-up story, Fitzpatrick also reported on personalized bourbon bottles Patel has given as a gift.) Patel has denied the allegations in Fitzpatrick’s original story and sued Fitzpatrick and Atlantic for defamation, demanding $250 million; MS NOW also reported last week that Fitzpatrick was the one the target of an FBI criminal leak investigationwhich the FBI denies is “completely untrue.” Earlier this spring, several shops too reported that Patel had fired agents from a task force that monitored threats from Iran—just days before the Trump administration launched a war against Iran—because they were involved in an investigation into the president’s alleged declassification of Mar-a-Lago. (Patel has denied these reports, saying the agents were fired for unspecified violations of “ethical responsibilities.”)
“Director Patel, I don’t care one bit about your personal life, and I don’t give a damn about what you do with your own time and money unless and until it interferes with your public duties,” Van Hollen said in his opening statement. The allegations, if true, “show a complete disregard for your responsibility,” he said.
The director responded with vitriol and contempt. “The only person who was throwing margaritas in El Salvador on taxpayer dollars and a convicted gang rapist was you,” Patel said. The director appeared to be referring to a visit Van Hollen made to El Salvador, where he met him Kilmar Abrego Garciaa detained immigrant whom the administration admitted to have wrongfully deported. (He has since been extradited to the United States, although the administration is now trying to extradite him to Liberia.) Photos of the meeting released by the Salvadoran government showed glasses on a table with salt rims and cherries, but Van Hollen has said no one drank alcohol. The reference to “convicted gang rapist” is meaningless; Abrego Garcia has been charged with human trafficking (he has pleaded not guilty), but there is no evidence that he has ever been convicted of rape.
Other Democrats followed up with their own questions. When Senator Chris Coons asked about the cost of Patel’s trip to Milan during the Olympics, when he was caught smoking beer in the locker room with the US hockey team, Patel didn’t answer. Coons also asked about the firing of the agents, but Patel said he did not believe the report. “Don’t you agree that there were 10 Iranian experts fired before the war started?” Confused Coons asked. “Yes,” Patel said. When Senator Patty Murray gave an example statistics indicating that FBI agents had been reassigned to immigration enforcement, Patel denied that as well.
Committee Republicans, meanwhile, chose to ignore the reports entirely, although Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana responded to Patel with softballs such as “Is it necessary to go out there and travel and talk to our agents and try to keep morale up?”
Patel’s strategy of total denial seemed to confuse Democrats. Only in the end did Van Hollen gain ground, noting that several statements Patel had made during the trial were “probably false” and giving the director a chance to correct them. Patel refused—but offered some amendments. He allowed that some of the fired agents may have been with Iran expertisebut he denied that they were in Iran experts. He explained that no FBI agents have been permanent redistributed to migration. Patel’s evasive response showed his disdain for the Congress and for the spotlight in general; surely he must realize that if the Democrats regain control of Congress, they may issue formal contempt charges as well. But Patel seems to be unafraid of any repercussions and is more interested in getting the membership scores that are spreading rapidly.
Rarely in the past have presidential nominees launched scathing personal attacks against members of Congress. In this regime, it is normal. In one of the most dramatic moments of the hearing, Patel responded to Van Hollen’s questions about his drinking by claiming that the $7,000 bar bill could be found in Federal Senatorial Election Commission reports. Van Hollen said the tab is for a big party and noted that it has been paid for with private funds, so he challenged Patel to take the Alcohol Use Disorders Diagnostic Test, a. a diagnostic tool for unhealthy drinking. Patel said he would take the test if Van Hollen would, to which the senator readily agreed. Who says Democrats and Republicans can’t agree on anything?
Here are three new stories from Atlantic:
Today’s news
- A senior Pentagon budget official told Congress that the cost of the war with Iran has risen to about 29 billion dollarsfrom an average of $25 billion two weeks ago. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined to say when the administration would seek additional funding from Congress, or how much emergency funding would be needed.
- FDA Commissioner Marty Makary is resigning after 13 months leading the organization. He had faced weeks of pressure to resign after a deadline of multiple layoffs, leadership changes, and clashes with lawmakers. Kyle Diamantas, the FDA’s top food regulator, will take over the acting role.
- The The Senate confirmed Kevin Warsh to the Federal Reserve Board in a 51–45 vote, clearing the way for a separate vote, expected tomorrow, on whether to become Fed chairman.
Evening Read
How AI Killed a 133-Year-Old Princeton Tradition
By Rose Horowitch
In 1876, A editorial in Princeton University’s new newspaper, Son of PrincetonHe opposed the use of proctors to monitor exams. Proctoring was “a form of bad moral education,” the author wrote. Consider the disciples presumptuously unfaithful, and others would be so; respect them, and they would learn to live with dignity…
The Honor Code was well run. F. Scott Fitzgerald (who enrolled at Princeton in 1913 but did not graduate) once wrote that transgression “does not enter your mind at all, any more than it would occur to you to own a fellow’s pocketbook.” This number survived two world wars, the 1960s crisis, the Watergate scandal, and even the rise of search engines and SparkNotes. It finally met its match in generating AI. Yesterday, after the rise of AI-enabled cheating became too obvious to ignore, the Princeton faculty voted to start taking exams again. Technically, the Code of Honor still exists. Students will still sign a pledge that they did not cheat. But now the professors will be checking to make sure they are telling the truth. The Honor Code can no longer be used on the honor system.
More From Atlantic
Cultural Breakdown
Take a look. The Devil Wears Prada 2 (out now in theaters) consumption The Last Supper showing that history can be both history and metaphor—a choice that shows how the film is less of a sequel to the first film and more of a “complete reversal of it,” Megan Garber argues.
Investigate. For 50 seasons, The survivor he has acted tension at the core of American lifeJulie Beck writes: Are we individuals or communities?
Rafaela Jinich contributed to this magazine.
When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for your support Atlantic.
