August 1, 2025 – FBI whistleblower reinstated after case exposed political bias and abuse in security clearances

In Email/Dossier/Govt Corruption Investigations, Featured Timeline Entries by Katie Weddington

The whistleblower who threw open the curtains on the FBI’s weaponization of the security clearance process against Trump supporters, COVID vaccine skeptics, and 2nd Amendment advocates has now had his security clearance reinstated.  The Justice Department has also agreed to cancel his indefinite suspension after more than three years, provide full backpay with benefits, and rehire him at the FBI.

More than a year ago, Empower Oversight unveiled shocking documents that showed the FBI forcing its client’s co-workers to answer improper political questions during a security clearance probe. Those documents led to a Justice Department Inspector General investigation, which is still ongoing.

In the FBI Security Division’s investigative file of Empower Oversight’s client, a preprinted interview outline listed the following questions:

  • “Vocalize support for President Trump?”
  • “Vocalize objection to Covid-19 vaccination?”
  • “Vocalize intent to attend 01/06/2021?”

The FBI interview outlines indicated that co-workers were also interrogated about their colleague’s other First Amendment expression outside of work, including attendance at a rally in support of the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.

“The FBI security clearance process was completely secret, with generally no oversight from the inspector general or Congress. That’s an environment ripe for abuse and easily taken advantage of. Without these back-room documents, we never would have known about the abuse within the Security Division, and that political considerations were right there in black and white as real factors in the decision-making process,” Leavitt said. “We appreciate the Trump administration giving this patriotic FBI employee an opportunity to move forward with the Bureau and look forward to resolving matters for other whistleblowers who suffered from the same bias.”

“The information brought to light through this whistleblower’s case showed clear government wrongdoing, and not just for this person, but for tens of others who suffered from the political bias of the FBI under the previous administration. We hope this is the first of many resolutions for those who have suffered for years without pay or a security clearance, leaving their lives in limbo. My work to find a resolution for other whistleblowers who’ve been wronged will continue,” Senator Chuck Grassley said. Grassley was a champion for the FBI whistleblower within the Department of Justice as they worked to restore the whistleblower’s employment and clearance

During a June 2024 interview with Tucker Carlson, Empower Oversight president Tristan Leavitt outlined the case about how these documents were discovered.

When Empower Oversight revealed the documents in June 2024, Leavitt wrote a letter to then Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, outlining the findings and asking for an investigation.

Empower Oversight had also previously provided the inspector general with evidence that the FBI’s Deputy Director told a large group of FBI executives that anyone who disagreed with the FBI’s handling of January 6th cases did not belong in the FBI. These whistleblower documents suggested that at least some FBI personnel believed they had a license to purge employees with certain views and abused their power to conduct security clearance probes as a pretext to achieve that goal.

When Rep. Tom Tiffany asked then-Director Christopher Wray in a House Judiciary Committee hearing about the so-called “Trump questionnaire,” Wray responded that the questionnaire was used by an outside contractor for the FBI’s Security Division who was no longer with the FBI. Empower Oversight subsequently revealed that such questioning is conducted almost entirely by contractors in the Security Division, but their work is often reviewed by career FBI employees. Furthermore, the contractor in question had been scheduled to retire at the time the questions were used and was not disciplined in any way for the use of the questionnaire as Wray’s comment implied.