Talk:Kash Patel/GA2

Comments

• According to a questionnaire he sent to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary This is quite the attribution. Can this not just be stated in WP voice? Czarking0 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of citing claims directly from Patel himself, though the questionnaire does appear reliable, at least based on the muted references to Benghazi. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• routing arrest warrants seems like unexplained jargon. What does it mean to route arrest warrants?

Patel sent warrants to judges for approval. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Patel served as a board member of the South Asian Bar Association of North America Can this be attributed to any additional sources? I take this source to indicate that his answers overall are notable but not that each of them is due for inclusion.Czarking0 (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Not any source worth including. I did search for the organization and Patel's name in search of sources that could confirm other very specific details, to no luck. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• but he was allegedly removed over disagreements he had with the office leading the case, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia This is one of those cases where if the allegedly is important then you should note who is doing the alleging if it is not then you should probably drop the allegedly.Czarking0 (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Should be fixed. Patel was punished, but he denies that he was removed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Czarking0 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Later, he incorrectly said he had been the case's lead prosecutor. Based on the source I think incorrectly said is not the right phrasing considering he published this in a book he wrote. Not a tweet, not an off the cuff remark in an interview, it was in a book that presumably went through an editing process. To quote NYT

  Mr. Patel has repeatedly made it sound as if he led the government’s overall effort to investigate and prosecute militants involved in the 2012 attack. As Mr. Patel himself acknowledges, he worked at the department’s Washington headquarters, or “Main Justice,” and he did not remain for the duration of the investigation.

  Czarking0 (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• From Rice, "Patel was not in charge, as he has often suggested, but he did play an aggressive role" this seems like a bit of a pattern for Patel. A bit more of this in the sources and I would suggest a small section.Czarking0 (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not the article I wrote. For future reference, the draft I merged is here. Some other users have rewritten sections. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok coming back to this because maybe I did not understand something. In my mind, I am not reviewing your draft, nor have I, nor do I plan to. I am doing a GAR for the main Kash Patel article. I feel like I am missing something here, why are you showing me this draft? Czarking0 (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• legal liaison also seems like unexplained jargon. Would legal council be better for us simple folk? What is the difference? Czarking0 (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

A liaison is a coordinator, and that is the term that CBS News used. I imagine that "legal counsel" was not his role, otherwise that would have been used. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Sources consistently discuss how quick Patel's rise to power was. Swan specifically could be used as a source for a claim on this. Is that in the article somewhere? Patel "took few notes in meetings" and was inexperienced for the position Is well sourced. This could be a good place to add the alternative perspective that he is good at pleasing his bosses and rose quickly.Czarking0 (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how that's particularly relevant. The reader knows that Patel went from a congressional aide to the director of the FBI in the span of eight years.

I am confused by your use of relevant? It is a notable claim about his career repeated in several RS. The reader could infer a lot of things from the text but stating that Patel's rise to power is quick is not solely a claim about the timeline of his career it is about his career progression relative to the norms of his industry. If you still think that it is undue to highlight his quick rise to power and desire to please his bosses then I think you should also remove was inexperienced for the position because "the reader knows that Patel went from a congressional aide to the director of the FBI in the span of eight years". Given the sources these are two equally notable opinions derived from different views of the same facts.Czarking0 (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe it's undue. It would be helpful to list those sources so that I can understand better. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

1. From CNN kash-patel-government-lawyer-fbi

   Patel, who begins his rounds on Capitol Hill this week as part of his confirmation process, rose rapidly as a star in the MAGA movement, coining a gold-flecked moniker, K$H, to sell merchandise including T-shirts and Trump-adjacent children’s books. That rise has been driven by ambition, an uncanny survival instinct, and a strong sense of grievance toward the government he used to work for, according to people who have worked with him over decades.

2. Barnes "Mr. Patel was promoted to a senior director position unusually quickly."
3. Swan "Patel had enjoyed an extraordinary rise from obscurity to power during the Trump era. Over the course of only a few years, he went from being a little-known Capitol Hill staffer to one of the most powerful figures in the U.S. national security apparatus."

I only checked 5 of the sources that I have already mentioned in this review to come up with these three quotes. From my reading of the sources material during this review I know there are several more mentions. Almost certainly more mentioned of a rapid rise than anything supporting inexperienced. Czarking0 (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Congressional testimony by Fiona Hill, a senior director for Europe and Ukraine at the NSC, purportedly revealed that Patel had directly given Trump negative information about Ukraine This is just not good writing it is not neutral phrasing. purportedly and revealed almost never belong. What is negative information? Instead a neutral claim attributed to Hill's testimony should be presented.Czarking0 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that portrayed the country as corrupt is neutral. Ukraine at that time was widely reported in RS to one of the most corrupt countries in the world. As an exaggeration this is like says He gave the president information that portrayed Singapore as densely populated. To me, portrayed is a WTW. Czarking0 (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Should be fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Still think you are struggling to give this NPOV phrasing In July 2019, Patel was appointed as senior director of the counterterrorism directorate of the National Security Council (NSC). Fiona Hill, a senior director for Europe and Ukraine at the NSC, stated in congressional testimony that Patel had directly given Trump information about Ukraine that gave him a negative view of the country. First, why is it directly given instead of just gave. I am not really sure what the informative value is supposed to be here? Are you trying to show that Patel may have lied? That could be more clearly presented by moving the last sentence of this paragraph to the front and then combining most of the rest of it into one sentence to show multiple sources to the contrary. The framing is strange gave him a negative view of the country. Why not gave him an accurate view or a more informed view of the country. Why should the POTUS have anything but a negative view on one of the most corrupt countries in the world? This use of information obfuscates what the information actually is. If it is about corruption maybe you should say ...congressional testimony that Patel informed Trump on widespread corruption in Ukraine. ? Czarking0 (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• "very careful" Quotes should be used only when they are particularly notable or there is a reason the article cannot make a claim in WP voice. This is one example of where this article is not meeting MOS:QUOT

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• In August 2020, Patel and Roger D. Carstens, the special envoy for hostage affairs, traveled to Damascus to meet with Ali Mamlouk, the director of Syria's National Security Bureau,[30] and in October, Bloomberg News reported that he had met with an unnamed Syrian official to discuss releasing Austin Tice, an American journalist who was captured in 2012, and Majd Kamalmaz, a Syrian-American therapist who disappeared in 2017;[31] in May 2024, U.S. national security officials told Kamalmaz's family that they had obtained intelligence indicating he had died in captivity. At a glance I think this is a little shy of beating the other one for longest sentence. Still it could use a healthy does of periods.Czarking0 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Patel was involved in the 2020 Nigeria hostage rescue, falsely informing the Department of Defense that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had gotten approval to enter Nigeria's airspace. The plane was close to landing when Secretary of Defense Mark Esper learned that the department had not gotten authorization, although SEAL Team Six was later given permission to land. The incident risked the death of the hostage, Philip Walton, or the deaths of several Navy SEALs. This should almost certainly be in a new paragraph. What was his involvement? It is really odd that falsely is used here and not in other places in this article. Would mistakenly better describe what occurred? Reading this makes me fell like I am left with many more questions than answers. Why is although SEAL Team Six was later given permission to land more relevant than the background on whatever was happening? Czarking0 (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It would not. The sentences are rather clear: There was an operation to secure hostages from Nigeria, Patel told the Department of Defense that SEAL Team Six could enter the country. The source is vague itself on what happened, which is why this is not covered extensively. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear are you simultaneously saying that the sources are vague on what happened and that Patel intentionally supplied false airspace information to the Department of Defense? Czarking0 (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

It is unknown whether or not Patel was deliberately lying. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok this section is still not well done. Starting with Patel was involved in the 2020 Nigeria hostage rescue. Maybe this is meant as a summary sentence? The information here itself is too short to warrant a summary sentence. If it is not meant as a summary then was involved should basically never be used in an article because the point is to say what the involvement was. Since it is unclear I would swap falsely informing for told. This carries much less implication. You bend over backwards to not say lied or false in other areas of the article where I think the sources are more much clear that these terms are warranted. Czarking0 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Patel supported an internal proposal this is vague. What did he do to support it? Give a speech? Post on Twitter? Czarking0 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The source does not state how he was supportive. Either of those are unlikely, given that this was an internal proposal. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Well with the Trump team you never know...(humor intended) Czarking0 (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Czarking0 (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• allege that Patel discussed security It is not clear why this is an allegation? Dicussing security seems like a normal and prudent thing to do during an attack on the capitol. Would state be better? Czarking0 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

These are allegations, because they come from congressional testimony. The Times is wary, and Wikipedia should be cautious here as well. The attack was severe precisely because there was a noticeable lack of security at the Capitol. The suggestion is that Patel knew the Capitol would be attacked or that he advocated for weaker security. It is not quite clear. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

"The suggestion is that Patel knew the Capitol would be attacked or that he advocated for weaker security." The article is not here to make suggestions it is here to state facts and notable opinions. For what it's worth I did not pick up that that suggestion at all from the article. "These are allegations, because they come from congressional testimony." To me, this does not follow. I don't think everything in congressional testimony should be described as an allegation so I won't accept that as a good reason to call it an allegation in the article. Also I have no idea who these Times are you keep mentioning. Is it the NYT? Times is not a sufficiently broadly known abbreviation for a global audience nearly every country has a paper that is referred to as the Times and this article certainly gets global viewership. Czarking0 (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

This is applicable to the comment about Meadows below: Patel's activities on and before January 6 are relevant because it gives insight into how the military was involved in responding to the attack. Based on his communications, Patel did play a role in that response, but I have yet to see a source that elaborates on that. His name isn't even in the January 6 Report. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

"Based on his communications, Patel did play a role in that response, but I have yet to see a source that elaborates on that. His name isn't even in the January 6 Report." Sounds like "Patel did play a role in that response" is OR then. Czarking0 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• He was in Miller's office during the attack. Is this notable? This seems like a where were you on 9/11 type thing. Czarking0 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Similar, he repeatedly contacted Mark Meadows, Trump's chief of staff, on the day of the attack why is this notable? Is it abnormal for the chief of staff of the secretary of defense to talk to the president's chief of staff I would think they talk most days? Maybe not, I have no idea what these people do on a day to day basis which I think says a lot about the quality of this article. Even if it is not normal on a day to day I can't say that I find it particularly notable that they would talk to each other during an attack on the capitol. Is this another case where talked to is supposed to be suggestive of some vague thing that cannot be reliably sourced? I feel like this borders on conspiracy theory fuel. Czarking0 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Although a lawyer for Trump instructed Patel to defy the subpoena,[46] he communicated with the committee Not clear to me whether he did or did not defy the subpoena.Czarking0 (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Patel did not defy the subpoena. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

When I leave a comment like this I am not asking you out of a personal request I am telling you the prose is unclear and the article needs to be changed. I'll get this one. Czarking0 (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• American Oversight, a watchdog group, sought Patel's texts in August. I think this is undue weight. At a minimum it is not really informative. The source is really about wiped phones this is probably notable for AO but not for Patel.Czarking0 (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Patel was represented by Stanley Woodward, who has frequently worked for associates of Trump. I would end this sentence at Woodward. The blue link suffices for who he is.

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• After The New York Times published an article in October 2019 about Fiona Hill's testimony in the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump, Patel filed a $44-million[75] defamation suit against the paper.[18] The next month, he sued Politico for $25 million[75] for defamation.[76] Patel's lawyers moved to dismiss both lawsuits in 2021. According to the Times, Patel did not pursue his case against the paper, while Politico's lawyers argued that the judge was prepared to dismiss the case. Just to check, this is written correctly? This sounds almost unbelievable. I would recommend against abbreviating NYT as the Times.Czarking0 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

This is correct and not unusual for a Trump ally—or Trump himself—to sue a news organization for a large sum, only to withdraw their lawsuit or have them dismissed by a judge. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh man I have nothing to say about this that I want recorded in the annals of WP but thanks for sharing and I am giggling out of frustration.Czarking0 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Before his confirmation hearing, Patel began conducting policy-focused interviews. This is vague, who was he interviewing? Or was he the one being interviewed by whom?

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am not trying to be dense but it still isn't clear to me. Is he the one doing the interviewing or he is being interviewed? Maybe there is something notable about the fact that it was before the hearing or you are just stating the chronology? Is this like in preparation for the hearing like study work so he knows what to say? Or like prep for running the place so he knows who to hire? Czarking0 (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

After Trump won the election, some of his lieutenants and allies conducted job interviews for government positions. Patel was interviewing candidates for the FBI; of course, at the time, Biden was still president and his nomination had not even been sent to the Senate. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Got it. I think the article needs to be more clear about that. Also due to some of your other comments about suggestions above I want to point out that I think you are trying to suggest something with the part starting at "at the time". I expect that a NPOV verifiable article does not make vague suggestions. Further I presently understand that all modern executive transition teams take unofficial action in preparation of their role for months in advance of their official power so that they are effective as soon as possible. Nothing wrong with being clear about that in the article, but making vague suggestions that Patel was unique in that practice does not seem warranted given the sources presently. Czarking0 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Senator Peter Welch repeatedly asked Patel whether Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election; Patel said that the election was "certified" but did not explicitly say that Biden won Maybe I already said this but I think this is not the best way to put it given the source. Consider cutting.

I don't see an issue here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Czarking0 (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• nearly two dozen this is not some huge number where rounding is expected.Czarking0 (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• He expressed interest in joining the bureau's hockey team. Is this really due for inclusion? Hockey is already mentioned several times in the article.Czarking0 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• a museum of the 'deep state' Rice notes how the building is named after J. Edgar Hoover, who used illegally used the FBI to pressure presidents and congressmen to his political agenda. This history is probably relevant for the pertinent question of why would the FBI headquarters make a good "museum of the 'deep state'".Czarking0 (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hoover is not why Patel is critical of the deep state. Patel is suggesting that the FBI be shut down or significantly reduced because, in his telling, it has become a weapon against Trump. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• From Goldman 2025c

  One former F.B.I. official familiar with the advisory team’s work said that members had been considering a regional model, but it differed from the one that was announced. A former senior agent on the advisory team who had worked with F.B.I. leadership before Mr. Patel arrived had even written a white paper that included a similar model. The former official said that Mr. Patel’s plan was better than previous proposals, but that its success hinged on having strong leaders in those roles. Changes to the top ranks of the F.B.I.’s structure had been discussed long before Mr. Patel’s arrival, former senior F.B.I. officials said, along with reducing the number of employees located in the Capitol region. One former executive who left several years ago but was deeply involved in the bureau’s management applauded Mr. Patel’s effort.

  Seems like some good additional context for the restructuring section. Overall this source is much more up to date and informative than what a lot of the section is currently based on.

• That month, Patel announced that Hannah Dugan, should be new paragraph

Government gangsters

Here is what the article says about the memoir spread out through multiple sections:

• Patel wrote Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy, a memoir that falsely describes the origins of the FBI investigation into Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and the authorization to wiretap Carter Page, a former Trump advisor. An appendix to Government Gangsters includes a list of 60 names labeled "Members of the Executive Branch Deep State".[150] The list has been widely interpreted as an enemies list,[d] though Patel rejected that term in his Senate confirmation hearing.[157] The memoir was later adapted into a documentary produced by former Trump advisor Steve Bannon.
• although he was interested in medical school programs,[8] he was inspired by defense lawyers who golfed at the club
• In May, he sued the Department of Defense over a review of his memoir, Government Gangsters (2023).
• calls for weakening civil service job protections;[133] Trump praised the book as a "roadmap to end the Deep State's reign".

Here is what the sources say: Rice:

• "posits the FBI has been controlled by criminals, "

• Government Gangsters includes a now-notorious appendix that names 60 individuals as agents of the “deep state.” “It’s not an enemies list,” Patel said at his confirmation hearing, claiming the appendix was merely meant to be a “glossary.” But that’s not how he spoke when he was promoting the book and campaigning for Trump. “I’m going on a government-gangsters manhunt,” “Who’s coming with me?” Trump went so far as to blurb Government Gangsters and called it his “blueprint” for taking back the government.

• "“They are the criminals,” he wrote in Government Gangsters, “we are the ones who are persecuted.”"
• "he says Schiff, now a senator, is “from the inner circle of Dante’s Inferno.”"

• Some of the people named in the appendix to Government Gangsters say they have no idea why they are on his list. Many are well known, but there are some who served at relatively low levels, including current and former FBI agents. “I’m not calling for any sort of harm to them physically,” Patel said on Kash’s Corner.

• Patel has articulated some substantive proposals for structural reforms. Government Gangsters contains several incongruously wonky chapters that read like they’re coming from a former public defender. He says he wants greater transparency and increased safeguards for civil liberties at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorizes the FBI to secretly intercept electronic communications. His critique of the head count at headquarters, around 7,000 employees, is widely shared among those who have worked at the bureau, even if they don’t think the answer is to turn the building into a museum. (Patel claims the proposal was hyperbolic but he’s serious about redeploying resources — as the reported 1,500 relocations attest. “You’re cops — go be cops,” he says.)

Goldman:

Patel distorted the Justice Department’s decisions. “Despite the fact that we had reams of evidence against dozens of terrorists in the Benghazi attack, Eric Holder’s Justice Department decided to only prosecute one of the attackers.”

• “By the time the D.O.J. was moving in full force to compile evidence and bring prosecutions against the Benghazi terrorists, I was leading the prosecution’s efforts at Main Justice in Washington, D.C.”

Patel trivialized the case against an attack ringleader.

“Ultimately, when it came to Benghazi, the Obama administration, the F.B.I. and the D.O.J. wanted to seem tough on terrorism, so they kept minimal prosecutions open and brought up big-sounding charges that we couldn’t support.”

Savage:

• "served to delegitimize the investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, stoke baseless suspicions that the F.B.I. helped instigate the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol and muddy the waters of the inquiry into Mr. Trump’s refusal to return classified documents after leaving office."

The origins of the Russia investigation The root of Russia-gate is the Steele Dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign and the DNC. … The fake dossier was the linchpin for the whole operation. This was yet another detail the Deep State tried to hide when Obama’s former director of national intelligence James Clapper went on to CNN and said that the dossier was not used to start the investigation. It was a flat-out lie, but it did serve Clapper’s true purpose, which was to help his Deep State allies at the F.B.I.

The Carter Page wiretap applications

Steele would leak the information, then the F.B.I. would use the media reports planted by their own source to bolster its investigations. One particular story went to Michael Isikoff at Yahoo News, which discussed how Trump campaign aide Carter Page traveled to Moscow … in order to justify part of their FISA warrant application on Carter Page. … The F.B.I. knew about Steele’s bias and that the Clinton campaign and the DNC had paid for the dossier at the time they submitted their FISA warrant application to spy on Carter Page, but they never told the FISA judge either of these facts, as was required by law. — “Government Gangsters”

To put the Carter Page FISA warrant into perspective, this wasn’t just routine police work. By getting a FISA warrant on Carter Page, the F.B.I. effectively had the ability to spy on most, if not all, of the Trump campaign communications, including messages from Donald Trump himself. That’s because these warrants don’t just let the F.B.I. observe the subject of the warrant but also people one or even two degrees removed from the subject. That means the entire Trump campaign could have been in the F.B.I. dragnet. … As I mentioned earlier, the F.B.I. didn’t need to spy on Donald Trump personally because a single surveillance warrant on one person in the campaign would give them the ability to do all the spying they could need on effectively any person in the campaign, including the candidate himself.

Calabro:

• "It was only a matter of time before they found each other, is how Patel seemed to see it. Just a “couple of guys from Queens,” he has said, trying to synonymize his brand with Trump’s home borough, and the scrappy knuckle-crack caricature that comes with it. In Government Gangsters, Patel reminds readers of this piece of shared heritage four times."

• In Garden City, Patel caddied for “very wealthy” and “important” New Yorkers at the local country club, some of them defense attorneys, he writes in Government Gangsters; as they played, he listened to their stories about the drama of court. “I could be a first-generation immigrant lawyer at a white shoe firm making a ton of money,” Patel thought. After he graduated from the University of Richmond and then Pace University’s law school, however, his dreams of Big Law and high retainers were complicated when, by his account, no firm would hire him.

• The lesson of the bench slap and its aftermath, as Patel explains in Government Gangsters, was this: Although he had tried “to do my best to serve my country,” senior government officials had “refused to step up to the plate” for him in return. Patel decided to stop working for “cowards.”

  The bench slap here is the Hardan incident above.

• Patel tends to emphasize his reluctance when he recounts going to work for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in April 2017, whether he is a teal-caped wizard in the telling or just another 30-something civil servant looking for the next thing. He has said that when he first met with Nunes, the committee’s Republican chair, about a staff opening on the committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, he thought the job sounded boring; what Patel had really wanted, since Trump’s election, was to work in the White House. But Nunes won him over, Patel writes in Government Gangsters, by promising to recommend him for a spot on Trump’s National Security Council once the probe concluded.

• "60 names in Patel’s compendium of “Members of the Executive Branch Deep State,” found in Appendix B of Government Gangsters."

Tillman:

• Dropped, Dismissed
  Patel worked for the House Intelligence Committee and served in senior national security posts in the Trump administration. Patel sued the Defense Department in May 2023, suggesting it was “unreasonably” delaying a review of his memoir manuscript because he was critical of government officials. Patel withdrew the case two months later and his book was published that fall.

• Bloomberg News identified six cases that Patel has filed since 2019. Four involved defamation claims. The other two were against a federal agency and former US officials that Patel accused of violating his rights. Taken together, they show how Patel has taken action in what he described in a 2023 book as a “battle” against “government gangsters” and “peddlers of propaganda.”

Williamson and Savage:

• “Fire the top ranks of the F.B.I.” Encourage Congress to demand testimony exposing “every single bit of filth and corruption” at the agency, and withhold its funding “until the documents come in.” Prosecute leakers and journalists. Replace the national security work force with “people who won’t undermine the president’s agenda.”

• "Not least, Mr. Patel called in his book for weakening civil service job protections for tens of thousands of career officials."

Spot Checks

• raised Hindu  Done
• He left the Department of Justice in 2017, later saying that the impetus for his departure had been the department's response to the 2016 presidential election Basically  Done however maybe it would be better to say it is more about the response of leaders in the department rather than the department as an institution?
• In April, Trump devised a plan to oust FBI director Christopher A. Wray and to appoint William Evanina to lead the bureau, while Patel would become deputy director. Attorney General William Barr halted the plan, threatening to resign.  Done I think Trump is given slightly too much agency in this framing but still verified.
• Patel "took few notes in meetings" and was inexperienced for the position  Done
• purportedly on Sean Hannity's recommendation. In general, I think purportedly is a word to watch. I think this is  Not done given the source.

I don't see that phrase in this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Right because I removed it since it is not supported by the source. Czarking0 (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Table

More information Rate, Attribute ...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I have indicated several sentences that are too verbose or not concise. I have also indicated several areas where the prose is vague.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Some examples of bad sections are given above and multiple WTW violations listed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Checked many and I see no issues
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sourcing is good. Well I said good and I mostly think that is true. There is a bit of a WTW issue I pointed out in the spot check section which needs to be resolved. IDK why I said this needs to be resolved. It was already resolved.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Coverage of the Hardan incident is a little troubling but the issue is mostly neutrality.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig discussed at top of GAR
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Nunes section in particular is underdeveloped. Mentioned several other areas where it seems like not enough weight is given to some details. Very little mention of his personal life.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Several areas where undue weight is paid to details that do not help the article. Though this is the least concern I have.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Many WP:VOICE concerns and relative weighting of content.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	discussed at top of GAR
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All copyright look good
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Maybe could use a couple more photos. Fiona Hill is mentioned a couple times maybe an image of her would work?
	7. Overall assessment.	Could pass needs work right now

Close