The FBI just dropped a bombshell by severing its long-standing partnership with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and Director Kash Patel isn’t holding back on why.
The Hill reported that on Wednesday, the FBI made the stunning announcement to end its relationship with the ADL, while Patel unleashed sharp criticism of the group and even took a swing at former Director James Comey for his past support of the organization.
Let’s rewind a bit to set the stage. The day before the FBI’s announcement, on Tuesday, September 30, 2025, the ADL quietly shut down its Glossary of Extremism, a database with over 1,000 entries on various topics. This move raised eyebrows, especially given the timing.
Patel didn’t mince words when he called out the ADL as a “political front masquerading as a watchdog.” It’s a harsh label for an organization long seen as a key player in fighting antisemitism, but Patel seems convinced it’s drifted from its mission. His conservative base likely nods in agreement, tired of what they see as politically charged overreach.
Then there’s the jab at Comey, with Patel mocking the former director’s past speeches to the ADL as overly cozy. “James Comey wrote ‘love letters’ to the ADL,” Patel quipped on Wednesday, signaling a clean break from that era. For many on the right, this is a satisfying jab at a figure often criticized during the Trump years.
Comey, who spoke to the ADL in 2014 and again in 2017, had praised their efforts in tracking hate crimes and terror plots. Patel’s dismissal of that history suggests a broader push to rethink which groups the FBI aligns with. It’s a move that could resonate with those skeptical of establishment ties.
Turning to the ADL’s Glossary of Extremism, its abrupt closure came with the explanation that many entries were outdated or misused. The database had covered a wide range of topics, including a backgrounder on Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the group founded by the late Charlie Kirk, who was tragically assassinated in September 2025. Some see this shutdown as suspiciously timed with the FBI’s decision.
The ADL’s archived page on TPUSA noted that individuals tied to the group had made controversial statements about minority communities, including Black, LGBTQ, and transgender individuals.
It also pointed out that while TPUSA rejected white supremacist ideology, extremists had appeared at their events like AmericaFest. Kirk himself had publicly condemned such groups, insisting they didn’t reflect TPUSA’s values.
Critics on the right might argue this kind of profiling by the ADL smells of agenda-driven bias rather than objective reporting. If you’re labeling a conservative group as problematic while extremists sneak into their events, shouldn’t the focus be on the intruders, not the host? It’s a fair question for those wary of progressive overreach in watchdog roles.
The ADL, for its part, didn’t directly counter Patel’s accusations but expressed respect for the FBI and law enforcement. They emphasized their ongoing mission to protect the Jewish community during what they call an unprecedented surge of antisemitism. It’s a noble goal, no doubt, and one that deserves support even amid this controversy.
Yet, the Trump administration, under which Patel serves, has also prioritized combating antisemitism, often focusing on university responses to protests over the Israel-Hamas conflict.
This makes Patel’s break with the ADL all the more intriguing—why cut ties with a group sharing a similar aim? Perhaps it’s less about the mission and more about the methods.
Former FBI Director Christopher Wray, in a 2023 congressional appearance, underscored the disproportionate targeting of the Jewish community, noting they make up just 2.4% of the U.S. population but face about 60% of religious-based hate crimes.
It’s a sobering statistic that highlights the stakes of this debate. Both sides claim to want safety for this community, yet they clash on how to get there.
The exact nature of the FBI-ADL partnership remains murky, though Comey’s 2017 speech hinted at collaboration on tracking antisemitic incidents and building community trust.
With that link now severed, questions linger about who the FBI will turn to for such efforts. Patel’s vision clearly prioritizes a departure from what he sees as politicized allies.
For conservatives, this move might signal a refreshing recalibration of federal priorities, focusing on action over optics. But it’s worth asking if this risks alienating valuable expertise in the fight against hate. Striking that balance will be the real test for Patel’s leadership as this story unfolds.