This partial transcript is computer-generated. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.
Mina Kim: Welcome to Forum. I’m Mina Kim.
As New York Times Magazine reporter Emily Bazelon points out in her investigation of the FBI after one year of Kash Patel’s leadership, “The FBI is a rule-bound institution that prohibits its active employees from speaking to the press without authorization. Forty-five people who currently work at the bureau, or who left during President Trump’s second term, spoke to us anyway—a sign of the extreme alarm reverberating through the agency.”
Among those who left is Jill Fields, former supervisory intelligence analyst for violent crime in the Los Angeles Field Office. Jill joins us now. Welcome to Forum.
Jill Fields: Thank you so much for having me today.
Mina Kim: We really appreciate you being here. To start, what kind of work did you do at the FBI?
Jill Fields: I had a fairly varied career. I began in counterterrorism, primarily working on international terrorism cases inside the United States—what we referred to as homegrown violent extremism, which became a major concern in the late 2010s.
I then served for two years as the FBI’s liaison to the CIA’s Counterterrorism Mission Center, right before the drawdown in Afghanistan. After returning to Los Angeles, I was hired as a supervisory intelligence analyst and shifted into the violent crimes program. That included fugitive investigations and transnational organized crime—cartels and large organized crime networks.
Mina Kim: What changed when Kash Patel became FBI director?
Jill Fields: The shift actually started before he was sworn in. There was a new emphasis on immigration, which was confusing because immigration is an administrative process—we work criminal matters.
At the same time, senior executives were being pushed out at the highest levels. There was a lot of rhetoric about focusing on “the worst of the worst,” which is already the FBI’s mission. But once Director Patel came in, the language shifted to “crushing violent crime.” That phrasing felt sensational and very different from how the FBI traditionally operates.
Historically, the bureau has been professional, apolitical, methodical, and careful. That doesn’t mean mistakes never happened, but overall the work was deliberate and grounded. This felt like a departure from that approach.
Mina Kim: You’ve said you were later asked to look into anti-ICE protesters, which ultimately led to your resignation in May. What happened?
Jill Fields: Initially, we were broadly asked to look into anti-ICE protesters, and we said we couldn’t do that—it’s not within our mandate. Then, during a large immigration operation in Los Angeles in February, there were protesters using bullhorns, warning people that ICE was present.
My team handled intelligence work—database checks and research. We said we could do a pre-assessment, but not open an investigation. The investigative team reviewed the full video footage and determined the activity was protected by the First Amendment. They decided not to open a case.
They were then told they had to open one anyway. I pushed back and said my team would not participate. I was told I could be fired immediately or in four years when a new administration reviewed constitutional violations. I said, “Fire me today.” I wasn’t going to do something I believed was wrong.
Mina Kim: You weren’t fired, but your team was taken away in April.
Jill Fields: Yes. I was reassigned to strategic partnerships—working with private-sector partners, Fortune 500 companies, and local law enforcement. But almost all public engagement had been halted. It was essentially a sidelining, a way to quiet me.
Mina Kim: This month, after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Macklin Goode in Minneapolis, the Justice Department and Director Patel reportedly steered the FBI away from investigating the agent and instead toward investigating protest groups and Goode’s wife. What was your reaction?
Jill Fields: That would be highly unusual. Normally, the FBI would focus on the shooting itself—particularly whether there was a color-of-law or civil rights violation. Investigating the victim’s associates instead is not standard practice.
From what I understand, the agent running that investigation resigned after being instructed to focus on Renee Goode’s wife.
Mina Kim: You’ve also seen videos of protesters being arrested in Minneapolis, and now there’s the killing of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old nurse, by a federal agent. How are you thinking about this?
Jill Fields: It’s tragic and completely unnecessary. The use of force we’ve seen from ICE and CBP has been excessive and inconsistent with their training. Federal law enforcement officers receive extensive instruction on when deadly force is appropriate, and these situations should not have met that standard.
Mina Kim: You’ve emphasized that these protesters were engaging in First Amendment–protected activity. What does it mean if the FBI is investigating people for that?
Jill Fields: It means First Amendment rights are being eroded. When you chip away at one person’s rights, you chip away at everyone’s. That’s not what this country was founded on. We do not investigate or silence people simply because we dislike or disagree with what they’re saying.
Mina Kim: Are there other ways these changes are affecting public safety?
Jill Fields: Absolutely. The pivot to immigration enforcement is pulling experts away from counterterrorism, counterintelligence, cybercrime, cartel investigations—areas where the FBI provides unique value.
People are leaving the bureau, and major investigations are being abandoned with no one taking them over. I know of at least one large transnational organized crime takedown—related to cartel drug distribution—that was canceled in February because of the immigration push.
Mina Kim: Jill, thank you so much for sharing your experience.
That’s Jill Fields, former supervisory intelligence analyst for violent crime at the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office. This is Forum. I’m Mina Kim.
