The FBI deleted a promotional video from one of its official social media accounts after watchdog groups objected that it labeled Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Michigan, by party less than a month before the Nov. 3 election. The video went up on Oct. 6, and a complaint reached the Office of Special Counsel the same day. The groups say the FBI El-Sayed video used a federal law enforcement account to sway a campaign. No investigator has ruled on that claim.
Where it stands: Democracy Defenders Fund sent a follow-up letter on Oct. 15 to three federal watchdogs. As of Oct. 28 there was no public finding on either complaint, and the bureau had not explained the post.
The FBI has not responded publicly. The Hill reported that “The FBI did not respond to request for comment for this story but has since deleted the post sharing the video.” In its Oct. 28 story, The New York Times wrote that “Representatives for the F.B.I. did not respond to a request for comment.” The Times also reported that “Representatives for the White House and government agencies contend that the complaints are politically motivated to hurt Republicans and that officials’ activities comply with the law.”
What was in the FBI El-Sayed video?
It was a short promotional clip contrasting Democrats with the bureau’s crime-fighting record. According to The Hill, “The video, shared by the FBI’s rapid response account on X on Tuesday, is more than two minutes long.” The outlet said the clip “does not mention the election outright and also credits FBI Director Kash Patel with arresting violent criminals and seizing fentanyl.” The FBI’s caption, as quoted by The Hill, read in part: “They sold slogans. We delivered handcuffs. CRIMINALS FEAR RESULTS, NOT HASHTAGS.”
Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) said the video showed several prominent Democrats, including El-Sayed, each tagged by party and placed in front of signs about defunding the police. It quoted the narration as saying: “Kash Patel’s FBI is taking safety back by force.” DDF’s account of the timing: “The FBI posted the two-minute video on Oct. 6 to its “FBI Rapid Response” account on X and later took it down.”
El-Sayed’s campaign did not answer The Hill’s request for comment. In an earlier Politico interview cited by The Hill, he said “defund the police” does not describe how he would approach policing, and added: “Look, it’s a pretty dumb and unnuanced slogan, which is why I understand Republicans really want to tie it to me now.”
Who filed complaints, and what do they allege?
Two groups have filed. Neither filing is a finding; both ask federal investigators to look.
| Filer and date | Sent to | What it asks |
|---|---|---|
| CREW, Oct. 6 | Office of Special Counsel | A Hatch Act review of the post |
| DDF, Oct. 15 | OSC, GAO and the DOJ inspector general | Hatch Act, spending-law and internal probes |
The ethics watchdog CREW, short for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, lists its filing this way: “CREW filed a complaint with OSC about a video posted on the FBI Rapid Response X account that highlighted several candidates running for partisan office, including Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, identifying the individuals by political party labels. After CREW filed the complaint, the FBI deleted the video.” Its filing argued, as quoted by The Hill: “The video’s explicit identification of Mr. El-Sayed, one of several current candidates within it, as ‘Progressive Democrat, Senate Nominee’ is a clear invocation of the upcoming election.”
DDF went wider. Its release says it wrote “to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the Government Accountability Office, and the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General.” The group says “The letter calls on OSC to investigate potential Hatch Act violations and seek appropriate penalties, including removal from federal employment.” It also asked GAO to examine the spending side and the inspector general to find out who approved the clip.
Outside the two filings, Delaney Marsco of the Campaign Legal Center told The Hill: “It shouldn’t shock anyone that this is not compliant with the Hatch Act.” The Times summed up the sequence as the FBI taking the video down “after multiple groups charged that it violated the Hatch Act.”
Why do FBI employees face stricter Hatch Act rules?
Because Congress put the FBI in a “further restricted” category that bars most of its staff from campaign work entirely. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which enforces the Hatch Act, says: “Further restricted federal executive branch employees are prohibited from engaging in partisan political management or partisan political campaigns.” Its list of such agencies includes the “Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
There is one carve-out. OSC explains that “Generally, Further Restricted employees are those employed in intelligence and enforcement-type agencies (except employees appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate).” So the Senate-confirmed director has more room for personal political activity than the career staff who run the bureau’s accounts. Nobody, however, is exempt from the core ban in Title 5, section 7323(a)(1), of the U.S. Code, which says an employee may not “use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;”
OSC enforces the stricter rule against rank-and-file FBI staff. In a Sept. 30 settlement announcement, it said of one bureau employee: “Because FBI employees are further restricted under the Hatch Act, the employee’s conduct violated the prohibition against taking an active part in political management or political campaigns, as well as the prohibition against soliciting political contributions at any time.” That case is unrelated to the video. More on the general rules is in our guide to Hatch Act rules for federal employees and our explainer on social media and the Hatch Act.
📨 Get Free Accountability Coverage Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
How does OSC’s new guidance apply to a post like this?
OSC’s newest test asks whether a party reference is incidental and neutral, or gratuitous and close to an election. In its Sept. 25 assessment of shutdown messaging, OSC wrote: “References to a political party that are incidental to describing a live legislative or operational dispute, are temporally removed from any election, and are neutrally framed are unlikely to be political activity.” It added: “Conversely, references that are gratuitous, made close to an election, and framed as an attack on a party are likely to be political activity.”
That test is what the complaints invoke, but OSC has not applied it to this video. The same assessment declined to discipline anyone over the earlier shutdown posts; our report on OSC’s shutdown decision explains why.
What else is pending against FBI leadership?
CREW has a separate complaint about Director Patel’s own comments. It says it “filed a complaint about FBI Director Kash Patel making comments that violated the Hatch Act during a Fox News segment about official FBI operations including “Operation Summer Heat 2.0” on September 29, 2026.” That wording is CREW’s allegation. The Hill quoted what Patel said on air: “You may want to vote for people who back the blue, who fund law enforcement, who put terrorists and rapists and drug dealers in prison where they belong.” The FBI did not comment to The Hill.
The seat itself is open. FOX Television Stations noted that “When outgoing Sen. Gary Peters made the surprise announcement that he would not seek reelection, it left an open Senate seat in one of the country’s most competitive states.” El-Sayed’s Republican opponent is Mike Rogers; the same report describes him this way: “Rogers, 63, an Army veteran and former FBI agent, served in Congress for 14 years and chaired the House Intelligence Committee.” There is no indication Rogers or his campaign had any role in the video.
As of Oct. 28, OSC had not said whether it opened a case on the video, and DDF’s Oct. 15 letter was still awaiting a reply from all three offices.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the FBI violate the Hatch Act with the El-Sayed video?
No official body has said so. CREW and Democracy Defenders Fund allege it did, and their complaints are pending. The Office of Special Counsel has issued no public finding, and the FBI has not commented.
Is the FBI video still online?
No. The FBI deleted the post after CREW filed its Oct. 6 complaint, according to CREW; The Hill also reported the deletion. The bureau did not explain the removal.
Can FBI employees take part in political campaigns?
Most cannot. The Office of Special Counsel classifies FBI employees as further restricted, which bars them from partisan campaign work. Senate-confirmed officials, such as the director, are excepted from that tier but are still barred from using official authority to affect an election.
Who is Abdul El-Sayed?
He is the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Michigan, running for the open seat left by Sen. Gary Peters against Republican Mike Rogers in the Nov. 3, 2026 election.
What could happen if OSC finds a violation?
For career employees, OSC can bring a case before the Merit Systems Protection Board, which can impose penalties up to removal. When the official was confirmed by the Senate, the law routes OSC’s complaint to the White House, and the president decides any discipline.
Sources
- FBI post featuring El-Sayed runs afoul of Hatch Act, experts say — The Hill, October 8, 2026
- Democracy Defenders Fund Calls for Investigation into Taxpayer-Funded FBI Video Attacking Democrats During Early Voting — Democracy Defenders Fund (press release), October 15, 2026
- The Trump administration’s midterms Hatch Act violation rampage — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), October 2026 (running list)
- Cabinet Officials on the Campaign Trail? Ethics Experts Say Some Are Breaking the Law. — The New York Times, October 28, 2026
- Federal Employee Hatch Act Information — U.S. Office of Special Counsel, accessed October 28, 2026
- 5 U.S.C. Chapter 73, Subchapter III: Political Activities — U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), 2023 edition, accessed October 28, 2026
- Hatch Act Assessment and Advisory: Partisan Agency Communications During the 2025 Lapse in Appropriations — U.S. Office of Special Counsel, September 25, 2026
- OSC Announces Settlements in Five Hatch Act Cases and Files Complaint Against Another Federal Employee — U.S. Office of Special Counsel, September 30, 2026
- 5 U.S. Code § 1215 – Disciplinary action — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, accessed October 28, 2026
- Michigan’s 2026 Senate race: What to know about Abdul El-Sayed vs Mike Rogers — FOX 7 Austin (FOX Television Stations), October 2026
This article is news reporting and analysis based on the public sources listed above, as they stood on the dates shown. Where officials, lawmakers or analysts disagree, including on whether an action is lawful, their positions are attributed to them; Donald Trump Class Action is not a court and nothing here is legal advice. Facts in a developing story can change.