Key Takeaways:

• Senior FBI agents sued Kash Patel, claiming he fired them to protect Trump.
• Patel admitted he removed agents working on Trump cases under orders.
• He said the FBI once tried to jail Trump and that he “hasn’t forgotten it.”
• That admission could open the door to deposing President Trump.

Kash Patel’s role at the FBI has sparked a new lawsuit. Three former agents claim he fired them to shield President Trump. Moreover, they say Patel admitted he acted on orders from higher-ups. In turn, that admission may allow them to demand Trump’s deposition in court.

How Kash Patel’s Words Could Lead to a Trump Deposition

Usually, it is hard to force a president to give sworn testimony. Courts require plaintiffs to work up to senior officials. For example, a past case took years before getting a deposition from a deputy FBI director. However, Kash Patel may have changed that rule by speaking too freely.

What the Lawsuit Says

The lawsuit comes from Brian Driscoll, Steven Jensen, and Spencer Evans. They were senior agents at the FBI. After January 6, they worked on investigations into threats and violence. Yet, in the summer of 2025, Kash Patel ordered their sudden firing.

According to the complaint, Patel told Driscoll that his superiors directed the removals. He said those bosses included the Department of Justice and the White House. Patel added that his job depended on removing agents tied to Trump cases. He stated, “the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it.”

In their filing, the agents allege Patel also claimed they could not have voted for Kamala Harris if they wanted a job. They argue that Patel used politics over professionalism. Furthermore, they say Patel dismissed agents who treated staff with respect.

Why This Matters for Trump’s Deposition

Courts rarely allow direct questioning of a president. Traditionally, lawyers must first seek testimony from lower-level staff. Then they move up the chain. In a past lawsuit, Peter Strzok had to work hard to depose his boss. He only won after a long battle.

Yet, here Patel’s own words could shortcut that process. If a court finds Patel spoke on behalf of the White House, it may view him as a direct link. Consequently, the agents could demand President Trump’s testimony sooner. Their lawyers can argue that Patel’s statement shows a clear chain of command.

Moreover, Patel’s admission that Trump “hasn’t forgotten” might prove the firings were personal. That claim ties Patel’s actions directly to Trump’s interests. Therefore, the agents may argue they must question Trump about his role in the firings.

What Kash Patel’s Admission Reveals

Patel’s statements paint a vivid picture of agency politics. First, he acknowledged that specialist investigators could be removed if they displeased Trump. Second, he seemed to accept that the firings skirted legal limits. He told Driscoll he knew the summary firings were likely illegal. Third, he revealed fear of losing his own job if he failed to obey.

In simple terms, Patel admitted that political loyalty trumped legal rules. He said his bosses wanted to eliminate any agent who worked on a criminal case against Trump. Thus, the lawsuit claims these actions violated both free speech and due process rules.

Agents Fired for Doing Their Jobs

Driscoll, Jensen, and Evans say they tried to protect agents facing unfair discipline. They allege Patel’s close ally, Emil Bove, led a “jihad” against those who backed January 6 probes. For instance, Bove blocked an email meant to rally the FBI workforce in support of Driscoll. Ultimately, the three men argue they lost their careers for upholding FBI values.

The complaint presents anecdotes to show their efforts. Driscoll, it says, intervened to prevent some firings. He aimed to stop unjust discipline. Yet Patel and Bove pushed back, and the agents lost their posts.

Legal Hurdles to Depose a President

Typically, plaintiffs suing government officials must follow a hierarchy. They ask witnesses at lower levels first. If answers prove insufficient, then they target more senior staff. Only rarely can they seek a president’s deposition.

So far, court precedents favor protecting top officials from early depositions. Judges worry about endless requests for testimony. They also worry about hampering executive functions. Therefore, they set strict standards.

However, a direct admission of orders from the president may break that barrier. If courts accept that Patel acted on Trump’s direct wishes, they could see no need for the usual steps. Plaintiffs could leapfrog to the president’s testimony. This would mark a big shift in how such cases proceed.

Possible Outcomes and Next Steps

First, the court will assess whether Patel’s statements count as presidential actions. If so, the door opens for agents to seek Trump’s deposition. Next, Trump’s team would likely file a motion to block it. They could argue that the president maintains immunity from such demands.

If the court denies that motion, both sides would prepare questions. Agents may ask Trump about his role in directing those firings. They could probe why he felt agents who investigated him deserved removal. Trump’s lawyers would work to limit the scope of questioning.

Meanwhile, Patel himself might face his own deposition. The agents can question him about his orders and motives. They may explore how he handled political pressure. His testimony could further link the president to the disputed actions.

Why This Case Matters Beyond These Agents

This lawsuit touches on broader themes of justice and presidential power. It raises questions about how much political influence can sway law enforcement. It also probes the limits of presidential immunity. If courts let agents bypass lower-level depositions, many similar cases could follow.

Moreover, the case shows how internal agency culture can conflict with political demands. FBI agents swore to uphold the law. Yet they faced removal for doing so. This tension between duty and politics lies at the heart of the dispute.

What to Watch Next

Watch for the court’s decision on whether to allow Trump’s deposition. That ruling will set a new precedent. It could reshape how future litigants challenge executive branch actions.

Also, pay attention to any further revelations from Patel. If other agents come forward with similar claims, the pressure may mount. The public will look closely at how the FBI balances its mission against political loyalty.

Finally, see how other courts react. If judges in similar cases cite this outcome, it may mark a larger shift toward accountability. Conversely, if courts resist, it may reinforce existing protections for senior officials.

In sum, Kash Patel’s own words may have unlocked a rare path to questioning a president under oath. His admission that he fired agents on orders tied to Trump’s interests could prove a game changer. As this lawsuit moves forward, the legal world and the public will be watching closely.

FAQs

How did agents say Kash Patel fired them?

They claim Patel admitted he removed any agent tied to Trump investigations under orders from the DOJ and White House.

Why is Patel’s remark about Trump important?

He said Trump “hasn’t forgotten” agents who tried to jail him. That links the firings directly to Trump’s personal interest.

Can you usually depose a president?

No. Courts usually require plaintiffs to question lower-level officials first. Depositions of a president are rare.

What might happen next in this case?

The court will decide if agents can seek Trump’s testimony. Then both sides will argue over limits and scope of questioning.