One would suspect that the application process for joining the United States’ preeminent federal law-enforcement agency would be both detailed and rigorous. Ever been convicted of a felony? Used illegal drugs? Lied on a background check? Failed to pay your taxes? Had sex with a goat?
You know. The usual.
It turns out, the FBI does have some fairly specific rules about the sort of past behavior that can keep you from earning a badge. And historically, engaging in sexual activity with an animal was among the behaviors that earned hopeful agents an instant thanks-but-no-thanks. But this past June, the FBI quietly revised its hiring criteria, making certain conduct—including bestiality—subject to case-by-case review rather than automatic rejection.
You did not read that last statement incorrectly.
Which is how, on Tuesday, FBI Director Kash Patel found himself before the Senate Judiciary Committee explaining why, exactly, a youthful indiscretion involving a llama is no longer a categorical dealbreaker for becoming an FBI agent.
Understandably, Sen. Dick Durbin had questions.
“According to an FBI-issued memo this June, the FBI has lowered its hiring standards by dropping automatic disqualification for applicants who have stolen from prior employees, paid for sex, or engaged in bestiality,” Durbin said. “In July, you claimed the FBI is ‘losing too many qualified candidates to the rigors of requirements from yesteryear.’ Director Patel, do you believe those who have previously stolen from employers, solicited sex, or engaged in bestiality are qualified candidates that the FBI is losing?”
The rigors of requirements from yesteryear? What exactly are we talking about here? Like, being proficient in Morse code, knowing how to saddle a horse before pursuing a bank robber across state lines, and keeping interspecies relations strictly professional? Shall we retire to the parlor to parley? I call the davenport!
“We did not want to punish victims of bestiality, victims who were trafficked,” Patel replied by way of an explanation. “We did not want to make it an automatic disqualification for the FBI to consider you if you are a victim of these awful, heinous acts.”
Which, I guess, I mean—[struggles to regain capacity to type]—fair. I don’t think anyone would argue that a child who was abducted and forced to do something unspeakable should be treated the same as some guy who looked across the pasture one evening and thought, You know, that Bessie is kind of cute.
But I have questions, too. For starters, how many aspiring FBI agents are we talking about here? Is there some massive, previously unreported population of otherwise exemplary candidates whose dreams of joining the bureau have been dashed by their histories as victims of animal-sex trafficking?
Patel referred to “cases” that had been brought to his attention, but the FBI hasn’t publicly established how many applicants were actually affected. Senate Judiciary Democrats have now asked the bureau to provide that number, along with records explaining the policy change.
Which raises another question: Do we really not have better rules to be updating? The FBI is the agency responsible for fighting everything from terrorism and cybercrime to Chinese espionage and whatever fresh hell AI unleashed today. And in the midst of all of this, someone over in Washington’s J. Edgar Hoover Building was like: Guys, we really need to revisit the livestock thing.
Let’s give Patel the benefit of the doubt here. Let’s say it actually is a huge problem and we’re losing tomorrow’s best and brightest to the rigors of requirements of yesteryear. Obviously, we must get with the times and remove this antiquated stipulation! I mean, abstaining from monkey sex is soooooo 1982.
Durbin was quick to point out that the revision states “applicants who have engaged in bestiality” and not “applicants who were victims of bestiality,” a distinction you’d think you’d be especially intentional about including if you were going to the trouble of rewriting the rules for that specific reason and all.
Curiously, the actual change, as reported, isn’t limited to trafficking victims at all. Previously, “engagement in prostitution or bestiality” was grounds for an immediate hell-to-the-no. Under the new criteria, a history of bestiality or animal cruelty is not automatically disqualifying as long as it occurred before the job seeker turned 18. There is no reported requirement in that standard that the candidate was coerced, threatened, hypnotized, blackmailed, or being held at gunpoint. Just: Were you old enough to vote when the sheep thing happened?
Which seems like a rather spectacular drafting error if Patel’s explanation is valid.
If the problem is that the FBI was effectively penalizing trafficking victims for their own abuse, why not simply add: “Conduct resulting from trafficking, abuse, or coercion will not constitute an automatic rejection”? Boom. Done. Victims protected. FBI standards intact. (Justice for the barnyard residents remains pending.)
Instead, the FBI apparently solved the problem by drawing the line at your eighteenth birthday—which leaves us with the rather astonishing implication that the relevant question isn’t necessarily Were you forced to fornicate with that animal? but How old were you when you did it?
The always hilarious Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana did a shockingly good job maintaining his composure during questioning.
KENNEDY: “I understand the game. People try to make you look bad. We do the same thing when the other party’s in office. And all of this stuff has really hurt the FBI. So I’m trying to get to the bottom of this. Why would you—in light of the context and what we’re going through, when we’re having a tough time attracting good, quality agents that we can trust—why would you even get into bestiality?”
PATEL: “We are not into bestiality.”
KENNEDY: “I know you’re not! But you changed the qualifications and mentioned bestiality! If Joe participated in bestiality—not as the animal, but as the human—don’t you think he ought to be disqualified?”
PATEL: “If he voluntarily did it, sure.”
And that is how a presumably well-intentioned attempt to protect victims turned into the director of the FBI having to assure the United States Senate that willfully hooking up with the neighborhood stray is, in fact, still frowned upon at the Bureau.
Whenever I see this sign, this is what I picture. ;)
The funny thing is, Patel’s FBI has actually earned bragging rights. The Bureau arrested more than 30,000 violent-crime suspects last year, disrupted 1,800 gangs and criminal enterprises, identified or located 6,200 missing children, and seized enough fentanyl to kill 178 million Americans. Whatever else you think of K-Pat, those are some pretty respectable receipts.
In a video published last summer, Patel announced the agency’s core commitments: to crush violent crime, defend the homeland, instill fierce organizational accountability, and rebuild public trust. Unfortunately, that last one may prove especially challenging now that the citizenry has discovered federal hiring policy includes a new livestock carve-out.
Godspeed, guys.
All I can say is, what’s the real reason that this issue came up?
The FBI….. where men are men and sheep are afraid 😱