Kash Patel is cutting through bureaucracy and performative partnerships with the energy of someone who understands what real law enforcement looks like. He’s closing the cozy little doors Comey propped open between the FBI and activist outfits that spent more time policing thought than crimes. This move is bold, necessary, and exactly the kind of shakeup the bureau needed.
The ADL’s habit of labeling conservative voices as “extremist” under Comey’s watch warped priorities and smeared organizations that operate in the marketplace of ideas. Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk were painted as villains for talking and persuading, not plotting crimes. Patel’s decision to stop that kind of mingling is a corrective that restores the FBI’s mandate: protect Americans, not curate political opinion.
FBI Director Kash Patel is cutting ties with the Anti-Defamation League that the bureau forged under its former boss James Comey.
“James Comey disgraced the FBI by writing ‘love letters’ to the ADL and embedding agents with an extreme group functioning like a terrorist organization and the disgraceful operation they ran spying on Americans. That was not law enforcement, it was activism dressed up as counterterrorism, and it put Americans in danger,” Patel told Fox News Digital.
“That era is finished. This FBI formally rejects Comey’s policies and any partnership with the ADL,” he added.
Comey’s public affection for the ADL wasn’t just tone-deaf; it was dangerous. When the head of the FBI starts swapping praise notes with a partisan-leaning activist group, the line between intelligence and ideology blurs. That blurring produces misdirected resources, politicized investigations, and eroded public trust.
On May 8, 2017, Comey addressed the Anti-Defamation League National Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C. and declared his and the FBI’s “love” for the organization. He began by referencing a 2014 speech which he called a “love letter to the ADL,” adding, “Three years later I can say, from the perspective of the FBI, we’re still in love with you.”
“We are not only educating ourselves, we are working with the ADL to build bridges in the communities we serve,” Comey said in his 2017 speech.
“For more than 100 years, you have advocated for fairness and equality… And for all of that, we are grateful. As a law enforcement and national security agency, yes. But also as Americans. As humans,” Comey said.
He concluded his speech with the words, “Love, the FBI.”
Ew. There’s no softer way to put it; that kind of public romance with an activist group looks less like partnership and more like endorsement. The FBI must be the nation’s shield, not a social club handing out friendship bracelets. Patel understands that optics matter and that law enforcement credibility is earned by neutrality and rigor.
Labeling a mainstream conservative group as “extremist and hate” for engaging in political speech is not counterterrorism; it’s censorship dressed up as caution. TPUSA was about debate, campus presence, and persuasion — not plots or violence. To call basic persuasion “extremism” is to weaponize language and to punish popularity of ideas you dislike.
There are real threats — criminal networks, plots, violent actors — and the FBI should focus on those. When the bureau outsources definitions of extremism to groups with agendas, it risks missing genuine danger and manufacturing scandals out of political speech. Patel’s move re-centers the mission on evidence and behavior, not on who shouted the loudest in the comment section.
Comey’s era blurred the lines between advocacy and national security, and that cost the FBI public trust. Patel isn’t “canceling” scrutiny; he’s tightening it to real conduct, not partisan labels. That’s the difference between protecting Americans and policing ideology.
The practical effect is simple: fewer wasted resources chasing rhetoric, more agents focused on actual threats. Communities deserve an FBI that assesses risk based on actions, facts, and law, not on a third-party group’s playlist of political enemies. Patel’s approach is a return to professional standards and a rejection of performative counterterrorism.
Critics will howl, but the louder they get, the clearer the case for reform becomes. A neutral, professional FBI keeps the peace and enforces the law without picking favorites. That neutrality protects everyone’s freedoms, including the right to speak and organize without being branded dangerous for disagreeing with a politically active NGO.
We should expect the bureau to build its cases with evidence and legal standards, not with talking points from advocacy groups hoping to score headlines. If an organization crosses the line into criminal activity, the FBI should act — but accusations need to be grounded in crime, not in ideological displeasure. Patel’s stance restores that baseline expectation.
For those who worry the bureau will drift into cold-hearted technocracy, remember this: law enforcement guided by law and truth is the most humane path. Leaving room for dissent, debate, and political struggle is what keeps a free country free. Patel’s cut with the ADL is less about spite and more about reasserting principles.
