Kash Patel accused of directing $1m to ‘slush fund’ to pay bonuses to loyalist agents
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/17/kash-patel-slush-fund-bonus-loyalist-agents
Kash Patel accused of directing $1m to ‘slush fund’ to pay bonuses to loyalist agents
Congressman Jamie Raskin alleges FBI director authorized substantial recurring payments to agents in his inner circle
Kash Patel, the FBI director, has been accused of directing more than $1m in taxpayer-funded bonus payments to a small circle of loyalist agents as part of a “personal slush fund” that may have violated federal law.
Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking member of the House of Representatives judiciary committee, alleged Patel had authorized substantial recurring payments to agents in his inner circle and security detail.
According to information received by the House judiciary minority committee, some agents received payments of nearly $8,000 every two weeks, despite already earning at the federal salary ceiling. While the exact total received by each individual remains unclear, the committee says it can confirm a number of agents received at least five such payments in consecutive pay periods, amounting to close to $40,000 per person.
The pace of disbursements was so rapid, the committee says, that FBI reserve accounts set aside for bonus payments were drained dry, causing some payments to bounce back from exhausted funds.
“Why are these agents receiving extra pay simply for doing their jobs?” Raskin wrote in a 15 June letter to the FBI director. “Are they, in fact, collecting bonus compensation for engaging in actions outside of their duties and outside of the law?”
He added: “We write to find out precisely how much slush fund largess you have put on the American taxpayer’s tab.”
The FBI did not respond to a request for comment. As the minority, Democrats have no authority to compel the bureau to hand over documents, though they would gain that power if they retake the House in November’s midterm elections, as some forecasts suggest they may.
The main beneficiaries, according to Raskin, were agents serving on Patel’s “director’s advisory team”. The unit was created in 2025 and tasked with examining internal documents and government materials to expose and discredit federal law enforcement officials who had investigated Trump and his allies.
Notus reported in May that the team has been referred to internally as a “payback squad” tasked with building politically motivated cases, including one modeled on the indictment of James Comey, the former FBI director.
When Democratic senators questioned Patel at a hearing on 12 May about whether FBI staff had been subjected to polygraph tests to identify who had been speaking to journalists, Patel responded: “I can tell you unequivocally this FBI is targeting and investigating no journalists.”
Raskin’s letter raised the darker possibility that the alleged payments to agents on Patel’s personal security detail served a different purpose altogether: keeping witnesses to the director’s private conduct silent. The letter cited reporting from the Atlantic alleging Patel had displayed erratic behavior and excessive drinking, and noted that agents on the protective detail had accompanied him on personal outings.
Patel has filed a $250m defamation lawsuit against the Atlantic and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick, who authored the article on his alleged drinking and absences.
The letter also catalogued a series of what Raskin views as politically motivated firings, including that of former acting director Brian Driscoll, an FBI medal of valor recipient; Steven Jensen, who led the bureau’s response to the January 6 attack on the Capitol in 2021; and a dozen counterintelligence agents tracking Iranian threats, who were dismissed days before the US launched military strikes on Iran.
Raskin gave Patel until 29 June to provide a full accounting of all bonus payments, the identities of those who received them, and any internal communications assessing their legality.
Consider us impressed
Nice: you just finished reading article
the past year. It seems you really value our work. We really value you too.We couldn’t help but notice though that while you’re a loyal Guardian reader, you’re not a recent supporter. (As you likely know, we are reader-funded. No billionaires behind the scenes here!) With dedicated people like you who haven’t contributed yet or recently, we often find one of two things are going on.
First: perhaps you simply don’t have anything to spare right now. If that's the case, we want you to know: we value your readership as much as those who can contribute, and please keep reading, as much as you like, forever. One of the wonderful values shared by Guardian readers around the globe is a desire to ease the burden for others. So ignore these appeals: our community of supporters has your back.
But if you can afford to spare something, here’s what we also know: most likely you’ve thought about giving, but for whatever perfectly human reason, you haven’t got round to it yet. So perhaps today is the day? We know – you’ve finished reading what you came to read, and you have other things to get on with. But we promise it’s quick, and even more: we promise it matters. We survive entirely because people like you decide to respond to messages like this.
While all support is gratefully received, and even $5 helps, please consider a monthly contribution: it takes less than a minute to set up, and it’s the best way to make the biggest impact – helping sustain our fearless, independent journalism for the long haul. We’re not going anywhere; we hope you’ll stick with us too. Thank you for helping protect the non-billionaire-owned press.
