Jankowicz Letter on Kash Patel Senate Confirmation Hearing
(Washington, D.C.) - American Sunlight Project (ASP) CEO Nina Jankowicz - a target of Kash Patel's enemy list - sent the below letter ahead of Kash Patel’s Senate Confirmation Hearing:
“Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Durbin,
I write to you in strong opposition to the nomination of Mr. Kash Patel as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As the granddaughter of a Soviet political prisoner, the daughter of a disabled veteran, a wife, a mother, and an American patriot, I believe confirming Mr. Patel to this position would pose grave threats to the rule of law and fundamental freedoms in the United States of America.
Mr. Patel included me on a list of what he calls “Government Gangsters” in an appendix to his book of the same name. I believe my inclusion in his list is related to a years-long drumbeat of conspiracy theories and threats about a political appointment I held for a total of 77 days. To Mr. Patel, this makes me a “government gangster.”
Mr. Patel either did sloppy research in compiling and publishing his list, believes conspiracy theories about me, or knowingly published falsehoods. Any of these attributes should be disqualifying for the nation’s leading law enforcement official.
I appreciate this opportunity to describe the impact these falsehoods have had on my life and my worries about my family’s security and safety should Mr. Patel be confirmed. They are not unique; if someone who served in government for 77 days could be called a “gangster,” what is stopping Mr. Patel from targeting other honorable public servants in this way, with the full power of the nation’s premier law enforcement agency behind him?
The Truth About My Work
I came to my work on disinformation through the lens of Russia and the post-Soviet space, a foundation that instilled in me the utmost appreciation for our First Amendment, as I worked in environments where free expression was at best imperiled. After completing two degrees focused on the democratic transitions of the region, I began my career at the National Democratic Institute where I supported democracy assistance programs to Russia and Belarus. Our partners were brave activists who operated in an environment where censorship ran rampant. A few years later, I was honored to represent the United States as a Fulbright Public Policy Fellow in Ukraine, where I advised the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry on strategic communications and countering Russian disinformation.
When I returned to the United States, I spent several years as a fellow at the Wilson Center, which has a long history of providing nonpartisan policy analysis to the executive and legislative branches. In my case, this included four Congressional testimonies at the request of both Republicans—including at the invitation of Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley in 2018—and Democrats. I was honored to interface with Members and staff on both sides of the aisle. In 2020, I published my first book, How to Lose the Information War,[1] which evaluates Central and Eastern Europe’s responses to Russian disinformation. The main thesis of the book is that playing what I call “Whack-a-Troll,” or relying on content moderation or removal to solve the disinformation challenge, is neither effective nor democratic; instead, I advocate for investing in education programs and other citizens-based solutions.
In other words, not only do I believe censorship is contrary to American law and tradition, I also wrote a book articulating my belief that it is ineffective.
In 2022, on the basis of my scholarship and analysis, I was appointed to lead the Disinformation Governance Board, an admittedly poorly-named coordination body tasked with shepherding counter-disinformation policy by other components within the Department of Homeland Security. In large part, this body was created to “develop and support the implementation of governance policies and protocols that, among other issues, protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties,” coordinate DHS’s work on disinformation that affected the homeland with other USG agencies, and set standards for the Department’s interactions with the “private, non-profit, and academic sectors.”[2] Despite common misrepresentations, my job was to protect civil liberties and prevent potential forms of censorship. The Board had no operational authority, no budget, and no full-time staff other than myself.
Within hours of the Board’s public launch, influencers and Members of Congress dubbed it a “Ministry of Truth” and claimed that I was censoring or adjudicating Americans’ speech. They did this entirely without evidence; even after DHS corrected the record, politicians, pundits, major media organizations, and influencers continued to repeat this falsehood. A few weeks later, in the face of an unrelenting wave of incendiary hate and lies, when I was weeks away from becoming a mother, I resigned from the Department. However, the threats, harassment, and lies continued.
In June 2022, Members of this committee released the Board’s founding documents,[3] laying out in a clear and detailed paper trail the boring truth of the Board’s purview and my former responsibilities: to coordinate the Department’s preexisting communication responses to relevant disinformation campaigns, and to recommend best practices and guardrails for the Department to better “ensure its counter-disinformation efforts do not have the effect of chilling or suppressing free speech.” The conspiracy theories were now not only baseless but also fully debunked. However, the threats, harassment, and lies still continued.
As I told the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government several times throughout my sworn 2023 deposition[4] about my time at DHS: if censorship were part of my mandate, not only would I not have taken the job, I would have loudly condemned such activities.[5] I am the granddaughter of a political prisoner who spent two years in a Soviet work camp, and, as outlined above, have studied, lived, and worked in countries where government censorship is all too real. My decade of writing and analysis—including testimony before this committee—has consistently pointed to education and more speech as a solution to the disinformation problem. Censorship is antithetical to my very being. However, the threats, harassment, and lies grounded in the belief that I was hired to censor continued, and follow me to this day.
Kash Patel Propagated These Long-Debunked Lies When He Targeted Me as “Deep State”
Mr. Patel either: believes the conspiracy theory that I was censoring Americans and am part of the so-called “deep state;” does not have the depth of knowledge to understand he is wrong; or is willing to ruthlessly exploit this lie for political or personal gain. Any of these possibilities presents serious concerns about whether he possesses the competence, judgment, and moral fiber necessary to lead the FBI.
In his September 2023 book, Government Gangsters, Mr. Patel published the false statement that my role at DHS was “to monitor and squelch messages and information that the administration doesn't support”[6] and named me on his “Deep State” target list in Appendix B.[7]
Creating enemies lists like the one Mr. Patel published is reminiscent of some of the darkest moments in political history:
Senator Joseph McCarthy’s infamous 1950 speech detailing a list of 205 alleged communist “enemies within” the State Department set off years of investigations that derailed careers and lives. Morale at the State Department plummeted; one employee committed suicide.[8] The loyalty of hundreds of individuals in the public and private sector was called into question. In 2004, when the records of the McCarthy investigations were unsealed, Senators Carl Levin and Susan Collins wrote:
Senator McCarthy’s zeal to uncover subversion and espionage led to disturbing excesses. His browbeating tactics destroyed careers of people who were not involved in the infiltration of our government. […] These hearings are a part of our national past that we can neither afford to forget nor permit to reoccur.[9]
The Nixon Administration notoriously circulated a memo that included an enemies list. The memo explored “how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration. Stated a bit more bluntly — how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.”[10] The author of the memo later spent four months in prison for his role in the coverup of the Watergate scandal. One of the list’s targets, Sidney Davidoff, recalled that his inclusion on the list “led to IRS audits, it led to people close to me, friends, interviewed by federal officials, being interviewed about me and their relationship to me and who I am and so on.”[11]
The Soviet regime compiled lists of “enemies of the people”—political opponents, often the educated elite—to send to government work camps, also known as GULAGs, that at their peak housed 1.5 million political prisoners.[12] And, lest we forget, “the Nazis began [their political rule] by identifying individual political opponents; branding them enemies of the German nation and dangerous obstacles to its recovery; and systematically attacking, persecuting, and suppressing them in the name of national peace.”[13]
The mere existence of any published list of political enemies is troubling enough for a presumptive FBI Director. The targeting on that list of an appointee whose total government service spanned under three months as “Deep State” is bizarre and concerning in its own right. But it is especially unqualifying that a prospective FBI Director would imply the need for retribution based on a pure fiction debunked by Congressional releases for over a year.
The FBI Director is one of the most important positions in government, and its responsibilities and power are weighty. The Bureau protects the U.S. from foreign intelligence and terrorist activities, investigates violations of federal criminal law, and provides leadership and assistance to other law enforcement agencies. Its criminal investigative functions include counterterrorism; cyber crime; foreign counterintelligence; organized crime/drugs; violent crimes and major offenders; white collar crime; and civil rights. These are critical responsibilities that require complex investigations and the utmost respect for the truth.
Mr. Patel’s decision to publish and include me on his enemies list demonstrates his lack of fitness for office. If Mr. Patel would publish such claims in a book without doing any fact checking, then he lacks the competence to lead a law enforcement agency that investigates the most sensitive and important cases in the country. If Mr. Patel deeply believes this or other baseless conspiracy theories, then he lacks the judgment to think critically and lead the FBI as it navigates complex foreign intelligence threats to our nation. And if Mr. Patel doesn’t actually believe the lie but chose to exploit it anyway, then he lacks the moral character “to protect the American people and uphold the U.S. Constitution,” as is the mission statement of the FBI.[14]
Particularly in the wake of President Trump’s Executive Order on “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” which calls for the Attorney General and agency heads to “investigate the activities of the Federal Government over the last 4 years” to recommend “remedial actions” for purported “censorship,”[15] I worry that Mr. Patel will use this “investigation” to seek retribution against researchers like me who deign to speak out against the use of disinformation in our nation’s politics. In this situation and all others, it is imperative that the FBI Director be objective, clear headed, and even handed so that any such investigations are grounded in reality, not debunked falsehoods.
These Lies Continue to Have Serious Personal Consequences
The consequences of the lies about me, my work, and my personal life have not been simply administrative or professional. I have received scores of death threats. While I was still a DHS employee, I was forced to contract a private security consultant due to credible threats against me and my family while I was in the final weeks of pregnancy. Since my resignation—for the entirety of my son’s short life—my family has continued to face a constant stream of hate. I have been depicted in deep fake pornography that has been viewed thousands of times. My child has been threatened.
A partial accounting of the out-of-pocket expenses I have faced as a result of these lies amounts to about $90,000. This includes retaining legal representation: for my deposition before the Weaponization Subcommittee; for frivolous civil litigation in which a plaintiff falsely alleged I conspired to censor him (a case that was dismissed with prejudice); and to secure a protective order against cyberstalker who threatened me, my husband, and my child; as well as security costs I will bear for the rest of my life.
Unlike many other members of Kash Patel’s target list, I did not hold a position of significant influence or consequence, despite the lies to the contrary. I have never had the benefit of a security detail. I do not have vast personal financial resources. The impact of these politically motivated investigations, legal actions, and threats has been completely disproportionate to my three short months of government service in an advisory position in an area of my expertise.
I can quantify the consequences of these lies in dollars and cents; what is harder to quantify in those terms is the economic and personal impact of the many hours I have lost preparing for depositions and legal proceedings, responding to bogus claims, tracking threats against me and my family, and more broadly worrying about my family’s safety and security. Similarly, it is difficult to quantify the many opportunities I have lost, or the fact that I can no longer publicize most of my speaking engagements for fear that they may attract those who wish me harm. My family and I forever have to change the way we move around in the world.
This, of course, is the aim of many who peddle lies about me, my colleagues in disinformation research, and others who choose to stand up for the truth: to keep targets buried in legal battles and threats in order to prevent us from speaking out and doing our work—work that is protected by the very First Amendment rights the Trump administration has so strenuously claimed it defends. Mr. Patel is one of the people who has perpetuated these and other conspiracy theories, and he has done so without concern for their real world impact. In his mind, I sit at shadowy tables with other “government gangsters.” In reality, the most important table I sit at is the one in my kitchen, where my husband and I do our best to get our toddler to eat his vegetables. We should be able to do so without fear for our safety, or fear that our government would target us based on lies.
I stand opposed to Mr. Patel’s confirmation not only because of my unfortunate personal stake in it, but because I fear that other families, other mothers, other patriotic public servants may find themselves on the wrong side of his conspiratorial thinking if elevated to the role of FBI Director, not to mention the public fallout his targets would be forced to navigate in our divided political environment.
Most of all, I write to you today because I remain committed to working toward a safer, more prosperous, freer United States. I believe it is my duty as an American to speak truth to power, and just as I have previously, I appreciated meeting with offices on both sides of the aisle in the past several weeks to discuss this important matter. I look forward to continuing to do so in the future.”
###
[1] Nina Jankowicz, How to Lose the Information War (Bloomsbury: 2020).
[2] Senator Grassley and Senator Hawley, DHS Disinformation Governance Board Charter, February 28, 2022, https://www.hawley.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/files/2022-06/2022-06-07%20DOCS%20ONLY%20CEG%20JH%20to%20DHS%20(Disinformation%20Governance%20Board)[1].pdf#page=9.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Deposition of Nina Jankowicz, April 10, 2023, https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Jankowicz%20Transcript_Redacted.pdf
[5] The Subcommittee's 17,000-page final report found no instances of so-called weaponization by the Board or me; the report contains just a few lines noting the Board's existence. Senior DHS staff corroborate my testimony that the Board did not engage in censorship. See https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/final-report-weaponization-federal-government
[6] Kash Pramod Patel, Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy (Post Hill Press: 2023)
[7] Ibid, Appendix B.
[8] The Levin Center, “Portraits in Oversight: Senator Joe McCarthy’s Oversight Abuses,” Wayne State Law School. https://levin-center.org/joe-mccarthys-oversight-abuses/
[9] The Levin Center.
[10] Micheal M. Miller, “Nixon had an enemies list. Now so does Trump,” The Washington Post, August 19, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/08/17/nixon-had-an-enemies-list-now-so-does-trump/
[11] Ibid.
[12]Gerhard Toews, Pierre-Louis Vézina, “Enemies of the People,” Free Network, May 24, 2021, https://freepolicybriefs.org/2021/05/24/enemies-of-the-people/
[13] Nazi Ideology and the Holocaust (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: 2007), 23. https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20090831-nazi-ideology-book-enemies-of-the-regime.pdf
[14] FBI, “Mission and Priorities,” fbi.gov, accessed January 27, 2025, https://www.fbi.gov/about/mission
[15] “Executive Order 14146 of January 20, 2025, Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” Code of Federal Regulations, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federal-censorship/
