The head of the FBI's employment law division apparently used LinkedIn to signal support for fired agents and their lawsuits against the very bureau she is paid to defend, a conflict-of-interest problem her superiors now cannot ignore.
Monica Hansen, a supervisory attorney at the Department of Justice who runs the FBI's employment law division, liked at least a dozen LinkedIn posts that attacked the bureau's decision to fire agents and at least two posts from the FBI Agents Association declaring it was "reviewing all legal options to defend our members," Just the News reported. Hansen's likes were still publicly visible as of Wednesday afternoon. She did not respond to an inquiry before publication.
Hansen has held her current position for nearly three years, handling employment cases on behalf of the bureau. That makes her social media activity more than a casual opinion. She publicly endorsed the legal position of people on the other side of the cases her own division exists to manage.
Among the posts Hansen liked were entries from or about Spencer Evans, Brian Driscoll, and Steven Jensen, three fired FBI agents who filed a lawsuit against the bureau. Hansen liked posts from Evans and Driscoll before the lawsuit was filed. She also liked a post from retired FBI agent Clay Hicks defending Jensen's character.
Evans wrote on LinkedIn that he "started the week, I didn't know Friday would be my last day in the FBI." The post was described as a positive reflection on his colleagues. Hansen liked it.
Hicks, the retired agent, was blunter in his defense of Jensen. He wrote that there "are hundreds of 'leaders' within the FBI who deserve to be terminated for any number of reasons," and that using Jensen "as an example and the face of government corruption is abhorrent and a LIE." Hansen liked that post, too.
The three agents' lawsuit alleged a "campaign of retribution" against them for insufficient loyalty, Reuters reported. The agents were fired after what then-Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove described as a loss of trust, he said he did not believe DOJ leadership could "trust these FBI employees to assist in implementing the President's agenda faithfully."
Hansen's activity went well beyond the three agents who sued. She liked a post from former FBI executive Kyle Vowinkel, who criticized attempts "to pressure acting top leadership," warning that pressuring "Director Brian Driscoll, could prove to be a serious miscalculation."
She also liked a post from retired FBI Special Agent Daniel Brunner, who wrote that the "FBI is not an extension of any administration, nor should it be weaponized for political purposes." Brunner's post criticized mass firings of agents who had investigated the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. That post related to a lawsuit brought by attorneys Norm Eisen and Mark Zaid, who sued the Trump administration to block the release of names of FBI agents involved in the January 6 investigation. They succeeded in blocking the release.
Hansen liked a National Law Journal post about lawsuits against the Trump administration. She liked a post from a former DOJ employee who criticized mass firings at the bureau. The trail of likes, taken together, painted a one-sided picture, every post she endorsed pushed back against the firings or supported agents challenging the bureau in court.
Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, a conservative nonprofit, told Just the News that the ethical problem is straightforward. Davis said:
"This FBI attorney violates her ethical duties to her client when she publicly supports the legal opponents of her client. She must get shown the door."
Bud Cummins, a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, offered a more measured but equally pointed assessment. He told Just the News that the standard for public officials and government attorneys is to keep personal opinions private "to avoid an appearance of a conflict."
But Cummins also acknowledged the broader reality that most public officials hold private political views, raising the question of whether the system is "best served by allowing them to pretend otherwise." He added that Hansen may have done the public a favor by being transparent:
"Maybe she did us all a favor. Maybe we are better off understanding where her personal sentiments lie. Now, in light of her transparent expression of her opinions, her supervisors can fairly evaluate whether she is suited to effectively represent the agency at least regarding these specific issues."
This is the second time in months that a senior FBI official has been caught endorsing anti-administration content on social media. In April, Just the News reported that FBI Deputy Director Christopher Raia liked a post from a former FBI agent who had been fired by the Trump administration and was running for Congress. Raia received no disclosed discipline. He deleted the interactions after the inquiry.
The lack of consequences for Raia raises an obvious question about Hansen: if the bureau's own deputy director faced no public accountability for the same kind of conduct, what incentive does anyone lower on the chain have to exercise restraint?
Hansen's case is arguably worse. Raia is a law enforcement official. Hansen is a lawyer whose professional obligations run directly to the client she is supposed to represent, the FBI. Publicly endorsing the legal arguments of the opposing side in employment litigation is not a gray area in legal ethics. It is the kind of conduct that, in private practice, would get an attorney removed from a case or reported to the bar.
Hansen did not respond to Just the News before publication. It remains unclear whether her supervisors at DOJ have been made aware of the liked posts or whether any internal review has been initiated. The current status of the Evans, Driscoll, and Jensen lawsuit is not addressed in the reporting, nor is the status of the FBI Agents Association's threatened legal action.
It is also unclear whether Hansen is personally assigned to any of the cases connected to the posts she endorsed. But the conflict does not require a direct case assignment to matter. She runs the division. Every employment dispute at the bureau flows through the office she leads. A division head who publicly signals sympathy for one side undermines the credibility of every position her office takes.
Government lawyers do not get to pick sides against their own client on a public platform and pretend it carries no professional weight. If Hansen's supervisors treat this the way the bureau treated Raia's conduct, with silence and a quiet deletion, they will have confirmed that accountability at the FBI runs in one direction only.
