Written by Thomas Gideon.
FBI Director Kash Patel has initiated an investigation into his predecessor, James Comey, focusing on allegations of unauthorized surveillance of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, as reported on February 26, 2025. A whistleblower’s claims, detailed by The Washington Times, assert that Comey orchestrated an off-the-record operation involving two female undercover agents to penetrate Trump’s team, separate from the well-known Crossfire Hurricane inquiry. This development marks a significant escalation in the scrutiny of past FBI actions under Patel’s leadership.
Unveiling the Alleged Covert Operation
The Washington Times broke the story, citing a whistleblower who approached the House Judiciary Committee with a protected disclosure last year. According to this insider, Comey personally authorized the deployment of two female operatives—termed “honeypot” agents in intelligence circles—to infiltrate Trump’s campaign in 2015. These agents, trained to use feigned romantic interest as a tool for extracting information, operated outside the FBI’s official systems, lacking a formal case file or number in the bureau’s Sentinel database.
The whistleblower, claiming direct knowledge of Comey’s orders, described the effort as a “fishing expedition”—a broad sweep for dirt rather than a probe tied to a specific crime. This operation allegedly ran parallel to, yet distinct from, Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI’s 2016 investigation into Russian ties with Trump’s camp, which itself stemmed from Democratic narratives pushed by figures like Adam Schiff. Patel, alongside new Deputy Director Dan Bongino, now seeks to locate these agents—one reportedly shifted to the CIA, the other climbed to a senior FBI post—to verify the claims.
The secrecy was deliberate, the whistleblower insists. Comey shielded the operation from oversight, notably excluding it from reports to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who later probed FBI misconduct in the Trump-Russia saga. The lack of documentation—unusual given the FBI’s protocols for sensitive cases—suggests intent to evade accountability, a move that abruptly halted when a major newspaper nearly exposed one agent’s identity in a photograph.
Details and Discrepancies in the Narrative
The operation’s collapse hinged on that near-miss exposure. The FBI Press Office intervened, convincing the outlet to withhold the image by labeling the woman an informant whose safety was at risk—except she was an undercover employee, not a civilian tipster, per The Times. This misstep forced the investigation’s closure, but not before sowing internal discord. The whistleblower alleges Comey’s team issued gag orders to involved staff, forbidding discussion even among colleagues linked to the 2016 campaign probe—a directive some perceived as a veiled threat.
One agent’s transfer to the CIA appears strategic—an exit to dodge potential testimony—while the other’s promotion to a key field office role raises questions about internal rewards for silence. The whistleblower points to institutional bias, noting the operation’s findings never reached Trump’s legal team during subsequent defenses. This omission contrasts with standard procedure, where exculpatory or relevant evidence typically surfaces, hinting at a deliberate slant against Trump within the FBI’s upper echelons.
Context matters here. Comey’s tenure, ending with his 2017 firing by Trump, was marred by controversy—handling the Clinton email case, then pivoting to Trump-Russia ties. Crossfire Hurricane, launched in July 2016, relied on the Steele dossier—later discredited—and fizzled by 2019 with no charges. This earlier, shadow probe, if true, predates that mess, starting in 2015 when Trump was a candidate, not a frontrunner, suggesting a preemptive strike by Comey’s FBI.
Broader Implications for FBI Oversight
Patel’s probe isn’t just a historical dig—it’s a reckoning. The whistleblower’s account paints a bureau willing to skirt rules, deploying “honeypot” tactics—common in espionage, rare in domestic politics—without a paper trail. Globally, such methods surface elsewhere: MI6 used female agents in Cold War ops, but U.S. norms demand stricter justification. Here, the absence of a predicate crime—a legal trigger like fraud or espionage—turns this into a rogue hunt, echoing J. Edgar Hoover’s unchecked 1960s surveillance of political foes.
The numbers add weight. The FBI’s 35,000-strong workforce in 2015 included 13,000 agents—plenty of room for off-book moves. Horowitz’s 2019 report flagged Crossfire flaws—bias, sloppy sourcing—but missed this, likely because Comey buried it. Today’s FBI, with 37,000 employees, faces a $2 trillion deficit backdrop—Patel’s DOGE ties mean efficiency’s the game, and this probe could unearth waste or worse. If those agents confirm the story, Comey’s legacy takes another hit—possibly legal consequences too.
Real-world parallels sharpen the stakes. A small business owner fudging books gets audited—why not a director fudging ops? The CIA transfer smells like a dodge—agency-hopping to duck scrutiny isn’t new; think Snowden’s NSA-to-contractor shift. The promoted agent’s rise? Could be merit, could be hush money in rank form. Patel’s digging now, and with Bongino’s bulldog rep, they won’t stop at surface dirt.
Our Take
Patel’s investigation into Comey is a long-overdue gut check—those “honeypot” claims, if legit, expose a rogue streak in the FBI that’s downright chilling. No case file, no oversight, just Comey playing spymaster against Trump? That’s not sloppy—it’s calculated, and it stinks of bias baked into the bureau’s bones. The whistleblower’s got guts; Patel and Bongino better chase those agents down fast—truth’s in their stories, not Comey’s old denials.
Still, it’s messy. Comey’s out since 2017—why now? Timing’s suspect, smack in Trump’s second term kickoff—smells political, even if the dirt’s real. The FBI’s not a monolith; 37,000 folks don’t all nod to this. But if Patel nails it—proves Comey ran a shadow op with no leash—it’s a reckoning. Clean house, sure, but don’t let it become a vendetta—focus on facts, not scores.
