The FBI’s Kneeling Problem

Kneeling — whatever the intent — was a symbolic act, not a law-enforcement technique. Performed while armed, in uniform, and clearly identified as FBI agents, it blurred the line between professional duty and expressive conduct.

FBI officers are seen here taking a knee as demonstrators marched in June 2020, in Washington, D.C., during a protest over the death of George Floyd, a Black man who died after a police officer kneeled on his neck for several minutes. Jose Luis Magana/AP

As many as twelve former FBI agents terminated for kneeling during the June 2020 George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C., have filed a lawsuit seeking reinstatement. They argue that their collective decision to kneel while facing hostile protesters constituted a legitimate de-escalation tactic intended to defuse a volatile situation — not an act of capitulation or political expression.

The New York Times reported that the agents were notified of their termination by letter, in which FBI Director Kash Patel stated that their actions “demonstrated unprofessional conduct and a lack of impartiality in carrying out duties.”

The widely circulated photograph FBI agents from the Washington DC Field Office depicts approximately fourteen agents standing in front of protesters, roughly half of them kneeling. In the foreground, one agent is smiling, another has a hand over her heart, and a third appears to be clapping. All are wearing protective vests marked “FBI” in bright yellow lettering, leaving no doubt about who they were. Presumably, all were armed and relying on safety in numbers.

According to the lawsuit, on June 4, 2020, agents positioned near the National Archives building were surrounded by what it describes as a “mob,” with protesters yelling, chanting, waving banners or clenched fists, throwing objects, and ordering the agents to “take a knee.” The filing further alleges that the agents were eventually backed up against a wall of the National Archives building, escalating an already volatile situation.

NPR reported that the Department of Justice Inspector General found “no misconduct on the agents’ part.” During NPR’s December 16 interview, Mary Dohrmann, the attorney representing the dismissed agents, argued that “the agents kneeling was context-specific” and warned that treating de-escalation as partisan risks punishing law enforcement officers for exercising professional judgment.

Dohrmann asserted that the agents involved were “counterintelligence and counterterrorism agents, cybercrime agents” — personnel whose professional training and mission do not include crowd control or public-order policing, functions typically handled by local law enforcement such as the Metropolitan Police Department.

Dohrmann added that the lawsuit, “claims not only the First Amendment violation based on this retaliation for nonpartisan de-escalation, but also Fifth Amendment violations of their due process rights because of the violations of the internal FBI regulations…”

While the agents’ kneeling does not appear to constitute misconduct, a potentially stronger argument centers on their due process rights. Whatever their perceived transgressions, the 12 agents are entitled to all civil service protections applicable to FBI personnel. Any disciplinary action must comply with established procedures, including the right to notice, an opportunity to respond, and impartial adjudication. Skipping or shortchanging those protections undermines the integrity of the Bureau’s disciplinary process and raises serious legal and institutional concerns.

However, during that same December 16 interview with NPR, Dohrmann was asked a pointed question by the interviewer:

“In the last few years, kneeling has been widely viewed as a political act, extending even into sports. Why was kneeling not a political act on this particular day with these FBI agents?”

It was a fair question — and one that went to the heart of the controversy.

Dohrmann responded by again emphasizing context, arguing that FBI leadership was attempting to remove “nonpartisan tools like de-escalation” from law enforcement practice and, in doing so, was “making national security a partisan issue.”

The response, however, sidestepped the core issue. This case does not hinge on the agents’ First Amendment rights or the suppression of protected speech. When acting in their official capacity — as these agents plainly were in June 2020 — their role was not to express personal views, but to represent the FBI through their conduct.

Federal agents in uniform do not enjoy the same expressive latitude as private citizens. Their words and actions are attributable to the Bureau itself. Indeed, FBI policy explicitly restricts agents from making statements or engaging with the media on behalf of the Bureau without prior authorization. Symbolic acts performed in uniform — or otherwise in an official capacity — carry the same institutional weight.

The question, therefore, is not whether kneeling can be political in some contexts, but whether FBI agents, acting in an official capacity, should engage in symbolic conduct or personal expression at all. Kneeling — whatever the intent — was a symbolic act, not a law-enforcement technique. Performed while armed, in uniform, and clearly identified as FBI agents, it blurred the line between professional duty and expressive conduct.

My FBI training included a wide range of defensive tactics and survival techniques but it did not include formal de-escalation training. Even if such training had existed, kneeling in apparent subservience to angry protesters would almost certainly not have been part of it.

While the agents’ actions do not constitute misconduct, their decision to kneel publicly reflects a lapse in professional judgment — substituting symbolic gesture for established law-enforcement practice while acting in an official capacity.