The FBI has fallen in esteem and dependability under Kash Patel.
This one is weirder than reports on his drinking problem or his unprofessional fixation on jet-setting with his girlfriend.
Under Patel, the FBI is no longer automatically disqualifying applicants with bestiality convictions.
What possible explanation could he have for this? That’s what the US Senate is trying to find out.
Kash Patel is ‘not into bestiality, but …’
On Tuesday, September 15, FBI Director for the Trump regime Kash Patel appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he faced a grilling about the new, worse standards.
Patel explained that the new policy avoids discriminating against victims of sex trafficking, saying that he didn’t want to penalize victims.
Louisiana Senator John Kennedy was in rare form — by which we mean asking sensible questions — asking Patel why he would “even get into bestiality.”
Patel replied that “we’re not into bestiality.”
He then explained that if someone “voluntarily did it,” they would face disqualification. “But if he [were] trafficked into it,” Patel added, that would not be the case.
Bestiality is sexual activity between a human and an animal of any other species.
It should not be confused with furries, a community that has non-human fursonas but where sex is limited to human-on-human encounters (even if they might wear masks or full costumes).
Similarly, it should not be conflated with fantasy art or “romantasy” stories where a human sleeps with werewolves, minotaurs, centaurs, and the like.
Bestiality is not wrong because it is “yucky.” It is wrong because humans have intelligence and perspective and imbalanced power dynamics with these non-human animals. The animal is the victim.
It is true that someone who has been, say, sexually abused might be forced to do any number of unethical things by someone seeking gratification, profit, or both. But should FBI hiring policy change over this relatively rare hypothetical?
Sen. Kennedy: Why would you even get into bestiality? Kash Patel: We are not into bestiality
— FactPost (@factpostnews.bsky.social) September 15, 2026 at 10:27 AM
[image or embed]
Why would the FBI change this particular policy in this way, at this time?
As many, many people have remarked, it really sounds and feels like Kash Patel made this policy adjustment for the benefit of one person.
FBI applicants in general are not necessarily movers and shakers in the political world. But they might have the ear of one, especially in the rampant corruption of the Trump regime.
We should also consider that the sensational “bestiality” aspect of the new hiring policy is a distraction.
Remember all of those “Armie Hammer cannibalism” headlines years ago? There are still, to this day, people whose knowledge of the scandal went no further than “cannibalism fantasies” and don’t know what he put those women through.
It seems more likely that someone who hired a sex worker but wants to be an FBI agent is applying. Either is possible! But the former seems more likely. If so, the “bestiality” angle is a distraction.
Unfortunately, this FBI hiring policy requires a lot of nuance. This is not a quality in abundance within the Trump regime or in the broader electorate of, well, any country.
Sex work is work. The ongoing criminalization of sex work, including the prosecution of and discrimination against sex workers, is a grotesque injustice here in the US and in many other countries. One among many.
This also means that customers — “Johns” — should not be prosecuted or face discrimination. If you stop prosecuting sex workers (which the US has not) but continue to go after customers, sex work is still criminalized, you’re just shifting your focus.
However, because the US has not yet decriminalized sex work, being or hiring a sex worker could be grounds for blackmail or exploitation. The FBI might very reasonably wish to avoid this possibility in finding recruits.
If some future FBI Director wants to come out with reforms in how this massive law-enforcement agency hires and operates, that’s great. We’d all like that.
But we also all know that Patel is not trustworthy in any capacity, and thus any “reforms” that he institutes are immediately suspect.
