It looks like FBI director Kash Patel is doing President Donald Trump’s dirty work for him. Patel, announced on Monday he was launching a criminal investigation into group chats used by Minneapolis protesters on the Signal messaging app, based on a social media post by the far-right personality Cam Higby.
Patel made the announcement in an interview with conservative host Benny Johnson, saying the bureau began looking at the Signal group chats after Higby posted on X that he had “infiltrated” the groups.
“This is clearly a coordinated infrastructure,” Johnson said, “and we’d like for the feds to take a crack at trying to get rid of this infrastructure the way they approach the mob or cartels or other terrorist networks, right?”
Patel himself then joined Johnson’s podcast – where he made frequent appearances before becoming FBI director – and confirmed that he would act as suggested.
“As soon as Higby put that post out, I opened an investigation on it,” Patel said.
READ: Dan Bongino leaves FBI post after a brief, controversial tenure
“We immediately opened up that investigation, because that sort of Signal chat – being coordinated with individuals not just locally in Minnesota, but maybe even around the country – if that leads to a break in the federal statute or a violation of some law, then we are going to arrest people.”
Higby’s posts allegedly described participants sharing information about suspected federal agents’ movements and coordinating efforts to track, identify and potentially impede Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel, though these claims have not been independently verified. Patel said the FBI’s focus is on determining whether any federal laws were broken, especially if actions exposed law‑enforcement officers to harm or violated statutes.
Patel was careful to say he was not investigating peaceful protests or first amendment activity, but added: “You cannot create a scenario that illegally entraps and puts law enforcement in harm’s way.”
The decision to investigate has sparked criticism from free‑speech and civil‑liberties advocates, who argue that sharing information and organizing protests via encrypted messaging — absent evidence of violence or clear illegal acts — may be protected under the First Amendment. They caution that investigating encrypted chats based primarily on a social‑media post could risk chilling lawful protest activity.
READ: FBI cuts ties with Anti-Defamation League following conservative backlash (
The situation highlights the growing tension between digital privacy, political activism, and federal law enforcement. As encrypted messaging platforms become central to organizing and communication, authorities face new challenges in determining when online activity crosses legal boundaries.
The case underscores the difficulty of balancing public safety with civil liberties, particularly the right to free speech and peaceful assembly. It also raises broader questions about the influence of social media and partisan reporting on law enforcement priorities, and how claims made online can prompt official investigations.
At the same time, the episode reflects a wider debate over government oversight in an era of rapidly evolving technology, where the line between coordination for lawful protest and potential illegal activity is often unclear.