Bill to Slash FBI Budget by $1 Billion Advances in House

FBI Director Christopher Wray testifies before the House Judiciary Committee during a hearing on "Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," on Capitol Hill on July 12, 2023. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

House Republicans on July 14 advanced a proposal that would slash $1 billion from the budget of the FBI amid ongoing concerns with the agency’s conduct.

The appropriations bill, which was passed through the House Committee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies on a party-line vote, would reduce the agency’s funding to $10.3 billion (pdf) from the $11.3 billion it received in the current fiscal year. The reduction would return the agency’s funding to about what it was in 2022.

The roughly 9 percent cut includes a $400 million salary cut for the bureau.

It comes amid a series of frustrations with the agency, which Republican lawmakers say has been weaponized against conservatives as they seek to address several key concerns.

The bill prohibits the FBI and others from using funding to “conduct any diversity, equity, inclusion, or explicit bias training.”

That provision comes after Republicans in the House passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act prohibiting the Department of Defense from engaging in similar practices.

Whistleblower Protections

It would also prevent the agency from using taxpayer funds to pay the salaries of those within the Department of Justice (DOJ) who engage in retaliatory conduct against whistleblowers.

“None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to pay the salary, benefits, bonuses, or expenses of a Department of Justice employee who is found to have retaliated against a whistleblower or suppressed an employee’s constitutional rights under the First Amendment,” the bill reads.

Agency whistleblowers have said that the agency has become “enveloped in politicization.” Many have reported incidents of retaliation for speaking to Congress about these issues—despite longstanding congressional protections for executive branch whistleblowers.

Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) confirmed that Republicans had uncovered a “pattern” of such behavior.

Garret O'Boyle with daughters Iris and Gwen, shortly before he left the Waukesha Police Department in Wisconsin for the FBI. (Photo courtesy of Garret O'Boyle)

In the most shocking of these cases, that of Special agent Garret O’Boyle, a whistleblower was moved across the country by the FBI. When Mr. O’Boyle and his family arrived in Virginia, Mr. O’Boyle learned that he had been suspended without pay, effectively “rendering his family homeless.”

The FBI also refused to relinquish possession of his personal belongings, including his young children’s clothing.

Special agent Stephen Friend was also placed on unpaid suspension, and the FBI refused to allow him to take other employment during this time. Mr. Friend also had his security clearance denied.

Asked about the apparent retaliation, Ms. Cammack said the FBI had suggested to him that it was merely a “coincidence.”

“It’s a coincidence that they leave these people in a position where they cannot seek outside employment, they cannot access their personal belongings, despite the fact that these men have served their country. But even worse, their loyalty to the nation has been questioned. This is truly the weaponization of government,” he said.

‘Politically Sensitive Investigation’ Temporarily Barred

It would also seek to temporarily prohibit the FBI and DOJ from conducting “politically sensitive investigations” at a time when the agencies are under fire for their conduct against former President Donald Trump.

Last year, the FBI conducted a raid on Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Florida home, which FBI Director Christopher Wray defended to Congress as the “lawful execution of a search warrant.” Republicans have disagreed, suggesting that the move was a political stunt.

Former U.S. President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump prepares to deliver remarks in Las Vegas on July 8, 2023. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Likewise, DOJ special counsel Jack Smith recently announced the decision to press 37 federal charges against Mr. Trump for alleged mishandling of classified documents. Mr. Trump has defended his conduct as protected under the Presidential Records Act and has characterized the allegations as a politically driven “witch hunt.”

To that end, the legislation seeks to bar the DOJ and FBI from conducting “a politically sensitive investigation until the Department of Justice establishes a policy requiring nonpartisan career staff to oversee such investigations.”

It defined politically sensitive investigations as “investigations of elected officials or their family members, political candidates or their family members, political organizations, religious organizations, and members of the media.”

Barred From Labeling Speech ‘Misinformation’

The bill would additionally prohibit the FBI, DOJ, and other federal agencies from using funds to classify Americans’ speech as “misinformation.”

The prohibition comes amid revelations following Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter that the federal government had been in contact with the social media platform to demand that posts, ideas, and stories be censored from the platform. It also prohibits federal agencies from partnering with nonprofit or private organizations to achieve the same effect.

Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, at a conference at the Porte de Versailles exhibition center in Paris on June 16, 2023. (Gonzalo Fuentes/Reuters)

READ MORE

• INFOGRAPHIC: Key Revelations of the ‘Twitter Files’

The bill reads: “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made used to (1) classify or facilitate the classification of any communications by a United States person as misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation; or (2) partner with or fund nonprofit or other organizations that pressure or recommend private companies to censor lawful and constitutionally protected speech of United States persons, including recommending the censoring or removal of content on social media platforms.”

FBI Response

In response to a query about the proposed budget cut, a spokesperson for the FBI cited Mr. Wray’s testimony to Congress last week.

During his questioning of Mr. Wray, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) asked, “Can you briefly describe for us what the effect would be on our national security and on our domestic tranquility if the FBI were to be defunded or dismantled?”

Mr. Wray replied: “Well, certainly it would be disastrous for 38,000 hardworking career law enforcement professionals and their families. But more importantly, in many ways, it would hurt our great state and local law enforcement partners who depend on us every day to work with them on a whole slew of challenging threats.

“It would hurt the American people, neighborhoods, and communities all across this country. The people we’re protecting from cartels, violent criminals, gang members, predators, foreign and domestic terrorists, cyber-attacks.”

The issue was raised again by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who asked what would happen if the FBI were defunded and dismantled.

Mr. Wray responded: “We would have hundreds more violent criminals out on the street, dozens more violent gangs terrorizing communities, hundreds more child predators on the loose, hundreds more kids left at those predators’ mercy instead of being rescued, scores of threats from the Chinese Communist Party being left unaddressed, hundreds of ransomware attacks left unmitigated, terrorist attacks—both jihadist-inspired and domestic violent extremists—not prevented that would succeed against Americans.

“Ultimately, the people most hurt by some ill-conceived effort to defund our agency ... are the American people that live in every district represented on this committee.”

The Epoch Times reached out to the FBI for comment but didn’t receive a response as of press time.

The funding bill addresses a litany of other charged social and political issues, including transgender ideology, COVID-19 mandates, and Second Amendment rights.

Due to its strongly conservative bent, the measure seems likely to fail in the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority.