Michael Feinberg’s abrupt resignation from the FBI has ignited a firestorm of controversy. The former assistant special agent in charge at the Norfolk field office walked away from a 20-year career, claiming he was targeted for his ties to disgraced agent Peter Strzok, as Just the News reports. His exit raises questions about loyalty, politics, and the FBI’s direction under new leadership.
Feinberg, who resigned on July 1, alleges he was pressured to leave due to his friendship with Strzok, a former FBI agent fired for biased anti-Trump texts. Feinberg claims his boss, Dominique Evans, warned him of a possible demotion and a polygraph test about his relationship with Strzok, instead of a promised promotion. This smells like a witch hunt, not a professional review.
Feinberg and Strzok, who bonded over music and dining a decade ago in the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, now find their friendship under a microscope. The FBI’s policy of polygraphing employees with sensitive information access, in place since the 2001 Hanssen spy case, is standard but feels weaponized here. Targeting personal connections reeks of overreach.
Feinberg’s resignation letter slammed FBI policies, accusing the bureau of sidelining national security for immigration task forces. “We shirked our national security obligations,” he wrote, a bold claim that paints the agency as distracted from its core mission. Yet his defense of Strzok suggests a deeper loyalty to a tainted figure.
Strzok, infamous for his affair with FBI lawyer Lisa Page and their anti-Trump texts, is a lightning rod for criticism. Feinberg’s decision to promote Strzok’s 2020 book, *Compromised*, in his resignation letter and on Bluesky shows unwavering allegiance. Blind loyalty to a disgraced colleague undermines his credibility.
After resigning, Feinberg joined the Brookings-affiliated Lawfare and appeared on CNN, MSNBC, and Jon Stewart’s The Weekly Show in August. His media blitz, cozying up to anti-Trump figures like Benjamin Wittes and Miles Taylor, suggests a calculated pivot to progressive circles. This isn’t the resume of a conservative martyr.
Feinberg’s attacks on FBI Director Kash Patel are relentless, comparing Patel’s leadership to the KGB, Nazi Germany, and China’s Cultural Revolution. “What the FBI reminds me of now … is what the KGB or its forerunner, the NKVD would have looked like,” he said on a July SpyTalk podcast. Such hyperbolic comparisons cheapen serious historical atrocities.
Patel, during his January Senate confirmation, denied having an “enemies list” in his book Government Gangsters, rejecting claims of retribution. Feinberg’s fixation on Patel’s alleged vendetta against Strzok feels like a distraction from his career missteps. Personal grudges shouldn’t dictate public discourse.
Feinberg’s claim that he was on a “glide path” to a senior executive role, only to be derailed by his Strzok connection, invites skepticism. “I was sort of on a glide path,” he told Jon Stewart, a line that sounds more like bruised ego than evidence. Ambition doesn’t justify rewriting the narrative.
Feinberg staunchly defends the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, denying that former Director James Comey pushed to include the Steele Dossier in the 2016 intelligence assessment. Declassified documents, backed by Patel and DNI Tulsi Gabbard, contradict him, as does a 2019 Inspector General report. Feinberg’s revisionism ignores hard evidence.
“The notion that there was some sort of massive conspiracy … is quite frankly ludicrous,” Feinberg said on SpyTalk, dismissing claims of FBI bias. His refusal to acknowledge documented missteps in Crossfire Hurricane suggests a selective memory. Truth matters more than protecting old colleagues.
Feinberg’s suggestion that Trump had ties to Russian intelligence during the 2016 election, made without evidence, fuels conspiracy theories. “Talking to a foreign intelligence service,” he implied on Stewart’s podcast, echoing unproven narratives. Such reckless accusations undermine his claim to impartiality.
Feinberg’s embrace by anti-Trump groups like Justice Connection and the Steady State, which includes signers of the Hunter Biden laptop letter, reveals his new allies. “Michael Feinberg is what courage looks like,” tweeted Miles Taylor, a known Trump critic. This praise feels less about principle and more about shared political vendettas.
Feinberg, who claims conservative roots with ties to the Federalist Society, now advises FBI and DOJ personnel to resist Trump administration directives. “There’s ways to put sand in the gears,” he told Stewart, encouraging bureaucratic sabotage. This isn’t conservatism; it’s obstructionism dressed up as duty.
His call for a “truth and reconciliation commission” to address Trump’s actions, floated on Stewart’s podcast, mimics progressive talking points. Comparing the U.S. to post-apartheid South Africa is a stretch that dilutes real historical struggles. Feinberg’s rhetoric increasingly sounds like a script from the anti-Trump playbook.
