Former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino described an agency at war with itself during a podcast appearance released Tuesday, saying he planted false information to identify insiders who were feeding details to the media, and that the tactic worked.
Bongino, who joined the bureau in March 2025 and left in January 2026, made the remarks on the "Hang Out with Sean Hannity" podcast. He painted a picture of an FBI split down the middle: one half filled with dedicated agents he respected, the other populated by people he said actively undermined the bureau's leadership from within.
The account amounts to a detailed, first-person description of institutional sabotage inside America's premier law enforcement agency, and a window into what the Trump administration's appointees say they found when they walked through the door.
Bongino told Hannity that the internal division became apparent almost immediately after he and FBI Director Kash Patel arrived. As Fox News Digital reported, Bongino framed the problem in blunt terms:
"There were two FBIs trying to help you solve the A, B and C problems, and that's FBI one and FBI two."
The first FBI, he said, consisted of agents working cases involving violent crimes against children, violent crime fugitive task forces, and similar frontline operations. Bongino said he felt "honored" to be in the room with those men and women, roughly half the bureau, by his telling.
Then there was the other half.
"And then you had this other FBI, which was populated with, to say, unfortunately, 'snakes' is being nice."
He said the problem was not always visible on the surface. Agents in this second group did not wear name tags identifying their loyalties. Bongino and Patel had to figure out, in real time, who was working with them and who was working against them.
That challenge, Bongino said, was "always obvious" in hindsight but difficult to navigate in the moment, especially during the first weeks on the job.
"You're trying to figure this out, and you're asking someone for advice, you've only been there a couple weeks, and you don't know if that person is part of the good FBI or the bad FBI."
The most striking detail from Bongino's account was how he said he identified the leakers. He described a deliberate counterintelligence-style technique: planting a small, fabricated piece of scheduling information and then watching to see if it surfaced in the press.
Bongino said he would share an "innocuous" made-up schedule detail with a specific person. If that detail later appeared in media reporting, he knew where the leak originated. He described the process matter-of-factly, calling it a "little game."
The tactic, he said, bore fruit more than once. Bongino recalled being told by colleagues that certain people inside the bureau could be trusted, only to discover the opposite.
"It happened a couple times where they'd say, 'Oh, you can trust John Smith.' And you trust John Smith, and then a week later you see a leak in the media and you'd be like, 'I'm pretty sure that came from John Smith.'"
Bongino did not name any specific agents or officials he suspected of leaking. He also did not describe any formal disciplinary actions that resulted from the technique. But the implication was clear: people inside the FBI were actively working to undermine the bureau's own leadership by feeding information to reporters.
That kind of conduct, if it occurred as described, represents a serious breach of institutional trust. It also fits a pattern that conservatives have long alleged: that elements within the FBI's permanent bureaucracy have operated as a political force, selectively leaking to shape public narratives and protect preferred policy outcomes.
Bongino's account is, of course, his own. He did not provide documentary evidence during the podcast, and the identities of any alleged leakers remain unknown. But his willingness to describe the method publicly suggests confidence that the underlying facts will hold up, or at least that no one inside the bureau is in a position to contradict him.
Bongino served as deputy director for roughly ten months, from March 2025 through January 2026. During that stretch, he and Patel appeared together at a Justice Department news conference on December 4, 2025, a visible show of unity at the top of the bureau even as, by Bongino's telling, internal resistance continued below.
The recent public dispute between Bongino and Joe Kent has added another layer to the former deputy director's post-FBI profile. Bongino has not shied away from conflict since leaving government, and his podcast appearance with Hannity suggests he intends to keep talking about what he saw inside the bureau.
When Bongino took the job, he stated publicly that he wanted to restore an agency that was "transparent, accountable, and committed to the rule of law." His full statement at the time went further:
"My promise to you is that I will work tirelessly to help restore integrity, eliminate political bias, and ensure the FBI remains dedicated to its core mission of protecting the United States and upholding the Constitution."
That language, "eliminate political bias", reads differently now, in light of his description of an agency where trusted colleagues turned out to be leaking to the press within days of receiving sensitive information.
The FBI under Kash Patel has been at the center of several high-profile developments. Readers following the bureau's trajectory may recall the recent FBI announcement that drew praise from the White House, as well as the ongoing questions about internal security that have dogged the agency.
Bongino's account raises as many questions as it answers. He did not specify how many agents he considered part of the "other FBI" beyond his general description of roughly half the bureau. He did not say whether any leakers were fired, reassigned, or referred for investigation. He did not describe the specific internal roadblocks he and Patel faced, beyond the general problem of not knowing whom to trust.
The reported FBI investigation into Joe Kent for a possible security leak offers a parallel example of the kind of leak concerns that have swirled around the intelligence community in recent months. Whether Bongino's account connects to any formal inquiry remains unclear.
None of those gaps necessarily undermine his story. A former deputy director describing, on the record, how he planted false information to catch leakers inside the FBI is a serious claim regardless of the details he chose to withhold. If anything, the restraint may reflect legal caution or ongoing sensitivity around the identities involved.
But the gaps do mean that the public is left, for now, with one man's account, however credible his position and access make that account.
The broader pattern is harder to dismiss. For years, critics of the FBI's institutional culture have pointed to selective leaks, politically convenient timing, and a permanent class of officials who appeared more loyal to their own policy preferences than to elected leadership. Bongino's description of "two FBIs" puts a name and a mechanism on that complaint.
The FBI's recent enforcement actions under Patel's leadership suggest the bureau is moving in a different direction. Whether that shift survives contact with the entrenched culture Bongino described is another question entirely.
Bongino's leak-trap story is vivid and specific enough to land. It describes a method, a motive, and a result, even if the names stay redacted. For conservatives who have spent years arguing that the FBI's problems go deeper than any single director or scandal, it reads like confirmation.
For the bureau itself, the question is straightforward: if half your people are working the mission and the other half are working the phones to reporters, which half runs the place?
An agency that cannot keep its own schedule details off the front page has a problem no reorganization chart can fix. The fix starts with accountability, and accountability starts with knowing who did what.
