Opinion | The Resignation of Chris Wray Signals Alarming Future Prospects Under Trump
The FBI director’s unexpected resignation raises alarming concerns about the future under Trump 2.0.
TroibNews 
When Donald Trump announced he was nominating Kash Patel as FBI director during Thanksgiving, the news sent shockwaves through Washington. Patel not only lacks the qualifications for such a significant position, but he has also openly articulated a retaliatory agenda aimed at using the FBI against Trump’s adversaries. However, a significant detail tempered Trump’s announcement: there is currently no vacancy at the top of the FBI.
Christopher Wray, the current FBI Director, still has several years remaining on his term. In a surprising announcement made during an employee town hall beneath the FBI seal, Wray revealed that he would remain in his position throughout the Biden administration and then resign.
Wray’s unexpected decision is fundamentally troubling; it signifies a retreat from leadership and illustrates how unprepared Washington is for a second Trump term.
This decision undermines decades of effort by Congress, various presidents, the Justice Department, and the FBI itself to extricate the bureau from partisan politics. The FBI is meant to operate under the principle of the rule of law, and federal law clearly stipulates that the FBI director serves a 10-year term to insulate the position from political fluctuations. Additionally, the law provides a mechanism for removing an FBI director only for cause. This role is not designed to coincide with the change in administration, unlike positions such as the CIA director, attorney general, or Defense secretary. Historically, presidents have continued to serve alongside FBI directors appointed by their predecessors; Ronald Reagan governed with Jimmy Carter’s FBI director in place, George W. Bush retained Bill Clinton’s choice, Barack Obama inherited Bush’s appointee, and Joe Biden has maintained Wray as Trump’s selection.
Such safeguards and traditions exist because an FBI in the wrong hands can be perilous for American democracy.
The FBI is the most powerful, best-resourced, and far-reaching law enforcement agency not just in the United States but globally. Its vast investigative powers, the intelligence it gathers, and the technologies at its disposal make it a unique institution. Its routine investigations can wreak havoc on businesses and lives, potentially ruining reputations without resulting in federal charges. Historically, under J. Edgar Hoover’s long tenure, these resources were wielded to destroy the lives of civil rights activists, antiwar protesters, and others perceived to be threats. In the wake of that era, the nation has worked diligently to ensure such abuses never recur—yet Trump now openly indicates a desire to rekindle that dark chapter in the FBI’s history.
There is no valid rationale for changing the FBI director anytime soon. Wray has served for seven years and has nearly three years left in his term. He is still relatively young, in his late 50s, and shows no signs of being unfit for duty. No inspector general report or internal investigation suggests grounds for his removal, contrasting sharply with the case in 1993 when Bill Clinton ousted William Sessions due to evidence of his abuse of office. Trump’s prior removal of FBI director James Comey for political reasons remains a singular event.
Typically, presidents face friction with their FBI directors. This tension is almost intrinsic to the relationship since FBI directors are bound by an oath to uphold the Constitution, not serve the president’s whims. Notably, some of the most commendable moments of leadership from FBI directors over the past half-century occurred when they resisted presidential pressure, such as when Robert Mueller threatened to resign during the domestic wiretapping controversy in 2004, leading President Bush to alter his approach.
Given these dynamics, it's crucial to understand the current situation: Trump seeks a new FBI director because he believes he cannot fully manipulate or dominate Wray. He desires personal loyalty, which is antithetical to the director's institutional obligations. This desire signifies dire implications for the future under a potential Trump administration and illustrates the agenda Patel may pursue should he be appointed.
Wray had the chance to confront this issue—forcing Trump to bear the consequences of firing him without legitimate cause and compelling the president to dismantle these crucial safeguards publicly. Instead, Wray opted to resign, capitulating without a fight. By doing so, he essentially hands control to Trump at his request, disregarding the enduring protections crafted over the decades that are meant to prevent the FBI from being politicized as it was during Hoover’s regime.
For those invested in the integrity of the bureau, this is a grave disappointment. Wray’s early resignation indicates a drift towards making the FBI just another political player, where an incoming president can casually suggest the resignation of the FBI director even before taking office. While Wray has faced significant pressure during his tenure, his willingness to step aside has ultimately weakened the protective barriers established around the bureau.
The backlash against Wray’s announcement has been swift and unanimous. Benjamin Wittes from LawFare articulated that Wray “faced no good option here. He chose the worst.” James Fallows criticized the situation, stating, “Maybe it is ‘inevitable’ that Donald Trump would have gotten his way in controlling the FBI. But other people don't have to make it quick and easy for him. Which is what Christopher Wray has just done. Resistance can change the calculations of ‘inevitability.’”
In his departure announcement, Wray suggested that resigning would keep the focus on the bureau's mission and help avoid deeper controversy. “My goal [in resigning] is to keep the focus on our mission—the indispensable work you’re doing on behalf of the American people every day,” he remarked, adding that this was the best way to prevent the bureau from getting further entangled in political strife. Sources close to Wray indicated he believed it would harm morale to have two directors fired by Trump. This reasoning, however, remains questionable.
Ultimately, Wray’s actions contradict the FBI’s core values and the diligent efforts of its leaders over the past fifty years. The decision seems to serve Wray alone, allowing him to return to a comfortable position in the legal arena without the fallout of Trump’s ire. This message to the workforce implies that they must either yield to Trump’s influence or resign.
In a way, Wray’s decision mirrors the self-serving actions of his predecessor, Comey, who in 2016 inserted himself into the Hillary Clinton email investigation, prioritizing his own image over the FBI's integrity.
Now, with two directors prioritizing their personal careers over the bureau’s integrity, the situation grows even more precarious. The only scenario more harmful than an FBI director compromising the bureau for personal loyalty is one who does so for loyalty to the president.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
Christopher Wray, the current FBI Director, still has several years remaining on his term. In a surprising announcement made during an employee town hall beneath the FBI seal, Wray revealed that he would remain in his position throughout the Biden administration and then resign.
Wray’s unexpected decision is fundamentally troubling; it signifies a retreat from leadership and illustrates how unprepared Washington is for a second Trump term.
This decision undermines decades of effort by Congress, various presidents, the Justice Department, and the FBI itself to extricate the bureau from partisan politics. The FBI is meant to operate under the principle of the rule of law, and federal law clearly stipulates that the FBI director serves a 10-year term to insulate the position from political fluctuations. Additionally, the law provides a mechanism for removing an FBI director only for cause. This role is not designed to coincide with the change in administration, unlike positions such as the CIA director, attorney general, or Defense secretary. Historically, presidents have continued to serve alongside FBI directors appointed by their predecessors; Ronald Reagan governed with Jimmy Carter’s FBI director in place, George W. Bush retained Bill Clinton’s choice, Barack Obama inherited Bush’s appointee, and Joe Biden has maintained Wray as Trump’s selection.
Such safeguards and traditions exist because an FBI in the wrong hands can be perilous for American democracy.
The FBI is the most powerful, best-resourced, and far-reaching law enforcement agency not just in the United States but globally. Its vast investigative powers, the intelligence it gathers, and the technologies at its disposal make it a unique institution. Its routine investigations can wreak havoc on businesses and lives, potentially ruining reputations without resulting in federal charges. Historically, under J. Edgar Hoover’s long tenure, these resources were wielded to destroy the lives of civil rights activists, antiwar protesters, and others perceived to be threats. In the wake of that era, the nation has worked diligently to ensure such abuses never recur—yet Trump now openly indicates a desire to rekindle that dark chapter in the FBI’s history.
There is no valid rationale for changing the FBI director anytime soon. Wray has served for seven years and has nearly three years left in his term. He is still relatively young, in his late 50s, and shows no signs of being unfit for duty. No inspector general report or internal investigation suggests grounds for his removal, contrasting sharply with the case in 1993 when Bill Clinton ousted William Sessions due to evidence of his abuse of office. Trump’s prior removal of FBI director James Comey for political reasons remains a singular event.
Typically, presidents face friction with their FBI directors. This tension is almost intrinsic to the relationship since FBI directors are bound by an oath to uphold the Constitution, not serve the president’s whims. Notably, some of the most commendable moments of leadership from FBI directors over the past half-century occurred when they resisted presidential pressure, such as when Robert Mueller threatened to resign during the domestic wiretapping controversy in 2004, leading President Bush to alter his approach.
Given these dynamics, it's crucial to understand the current situation: Trump seeks a new FBI director because he believes he cannot fully manipulate or dominate Wray. He desires personal loyalty, which is antithetical to the director's institutional obligations. This desire signifies dire implications for the future under a potential Trump administration and illustrates the agenda Patel may pursue should he be appointed.
Wray had the chance to confront this issue—forcing Trump to bear the consequences of firing him without legitimate cause and compelling the president to dismantle these crucial safeguards publicly. Instead, Wray opted to resign, capitulating without a fight. By doing so, he essentially hands control to Trump at his request, disregarding the enduring protections crafted over the decades that are meant to prevent the FBI from being politicized as it was during Hoover’s regime.
For those invested in the integrity of the bureau, this is a grave disappointment. Wray’s early resignation indicates a drift towards making the FBI just another political player, where an incoming president can casually suggest the resignation of the FBI director even before taking office. While Wray has faced significant pressure during his tenure, his willingness to step aside has ultimately weakened the protective barriers established around the bureau.
The backlash against Wray’s announcement has been swift and unanimous. Benjamin Wittes from LawFare articulated that Wray “faced no good option here. He chose the worst.” James Fallows criticized the situation, stating, “Maybe it is ‘inevitable’ that Donald Trump would have gotten his way in controlling the FBI. But other people don't have to make it quick and easy for him. Which is what Christopher Wray has just done. Resistance can change the calculations of ‘inevitability.’”
In his departure announcement, Wray suggested that resigning would keep the focus on the bureau's mission and help avoid deeper controversy. “My goal [in resigning] is to keep the focus on our mission—the indispensable work you’re doing on behalf of the American people every day,” he remarked, adding that this was the best way to prevent the bureau from getting further entangled in political strife. Sources close to Wray indicated he believed it would harm morale to have two directors fired by Trump. This reasoning, however, remains questionable.
Ultimately, Wray’s actions contradict the FBI’s core values and the diligent efforts of its leaders over the past fifty years. The decision seems to serve Wray alone, allowing him to return to a comfortable position in the legal arena without the fallout of Trump’s ire. This message to the workforce implies that they must either yield to Trump’s influence or resign.
In a way, Wray’s decision mirrors the self-serving actions of his predecessor, Comey, who in 2016 inserted himself into the Hillary Clinton email investigation, prioritizing his own image over the FBI's integrity.
Now, with two directors prioritizing their personal careers over the bureau’s integrity, the situation grows even more precarious. The only scenario more harmful than an FBI director compromising the bureau for personal loyalty is one who does so for loyalty to the president.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
