In a revelation that could reshape perceptions of the 2016 election, a whistleblower has reportedly told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the FBI ran an off-the-record operation to infiltrate Donald Trump’s campaign. According to a report from The Washington Times, a whistleblower disclosed to members of the House Judiciary Committee that FBI agents were covertly deployed as “honeypots” to gather information from within Trump’s team. This move allegedly dates back to 2015 and predates the infamous Crossfire Hurricane investigation, raising questions about the FBI’s actions during that period.
The whistleblower’s report specifically points to former FBI Director James Comey, who allegedly authorized the use of two female FBI agents to infiltrate the Trump campaign in a move that some are calling a “fishing expedition.” These agents were purportedly instructed to use romantic interactions to gain information from campaign insiders, a tactic known as a “honeypot” operation. The whistleblower’s claims echo earlier accusations by Trump, who has long insisted that his campaign was the subject of unwarranted surveillance and infiltration by intelligence agencies.
Adding to the intrigue, the whistleblower alleges that this undercover operation was deliberately concealed from the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG). In 2019, the OIG’s Michael Horowitz investigated the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe into Trump’s alleged ties with Russia, ultimately finding that while mistakes were made, there was a legal basis for the investigation. However, the whistleblower stressed that the supposed honeypot infiltration was distinct from Crossfire Hurricane, predating it and involving tactics that were reportedly neither approved by nor known to Horowitz’s team.
The information raises significant legal and ethical concerns. In a statement to The Washington Times, former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker emphasized the seriousness of the allegations. Swecker argued that such a sensitive infiltration of a presidential campaign would typically require the approval of the attorney general and would need to be well-documented.
“It’s an unpredicated infiltration of a presidential campaign, which is sensitive,” he said, adding that any authorized investigation “would have to be predicated, and in this case, I’m not hearing any predication. It would have to be on the books anyway, regardless.”
Should the whistleblower’s allegations be substantiated, this could indicate a major breach of FBI protocol, one that might imply political motivations behind actions taken at the highest levels of the bureau. Members of the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Jim Jordan, have announced plans to investigate the whistleblower’s claims.
Although committee officials did not offer specifics about the next steps, a spokesperson confirmed that they “received the whistleblower’s testimony and plan to look into the matter further.”
The whistleblower also suggested that the information gathered by the alleged honeypots was never shared with Trump’s legal counsel, potentially hindering his ability to build a comprehensive defense during subsequent investigations. For years, Trump and his allies have claimed that the U.S. intelligence community attempted to sabotage his presidential ambitions. However, these latest allegations go further, suggesting preemptive infiltration that would surpass the controversies surrounding Crossfire Hurricane and the Russia probe.
The whistleblower’s report reflects long-standing concerns among Republicans who have questioned the FBI’s conduct in politically sensitive investigations. GOP officials, including those on the House Judiciary Committee, are expected to press further for answers regarding whether this reported infiltration was legally justified or if it was part of a broader, unauthorized surveillance strategy aimed at Trump’s campaign.
These allegations come amid heightened scrutiny of intelligence agencies and a bipartisan call for transparency within federal law enforcement. Recent investigations into FBI practices have highlighted several instances where bureau agents have faced criticism for actions perceived to be politically motivated or improperly handled.
Swecker and other former FBI officials have warned that if the whistleblower’s account is validated, it could point to a “booming, egregious violation” of FBI norms, adding fuel to calls for a deeper investigation into the agency’s historical actions.
For his part, Trump has continued to allege that he was the subject of undue surveillance, describing himself as the target of “witch hunts” by Washington insiders. The whistleblower’s disclosures could bolster his claims of political persecution, giving fresh ammunition to those who argue that intelligence agencies were weaponized against a political candidate.
In response to the whistleblower’s allegations, calls for reform within the FBI and other intelligence agencies are likely to intensify. Critics argue that any infiltration of a political campaign should be met with extensive oversight to ensure the integrity of the democratic process. Others worry that these kinds of operations, if true, could erode public trust in the FBI and other intelligence bodies at a time when faith in democratic institutions is already tenuous.
As the House Judiciary Committee prepares to examine these new allegations, the spotlight on the FBI’s conduct will grow. Should the whistleblower’s claims be verified, they would represent a profound challenge to the agency’s reputation and necessitate urgent reforms to prevent future actions that could undermine American electoral processes.