Why Is Kash Patel Planning to Visit Russia?

R ussia is a U.S. adversary, with a track record of interfering in U.S. elections.

It’s providing support for Iran in its war with the United States even as the U.S. backs Ukraine in its long-running war against Russia.

FBI agents work day and night to combat a long list of threats emanating from Russian soil: espionage, cyber intrusions, influence campaigns, and efforts to infiltrate American institutions and critical infrastructure.

So when the news emerged this summer that FBI Director Kash Patel would be visiting Moscow just three weeks before the midterm elections, many of his own employees were puzzled—and concerned.

Current and former FBI officials familiar with the matter told me there was a quiet campaign to urge senior leadership to cancel the trip.

When that and other efforts to pass apprehensions up the chain went unanswered, some shared their worries with Congress.

Now a pair of senior House Democrats are taking the unusual step of asking the FBI director to scrap the visit, which is reportedly set to begin next week: “In the interest of national security, we ask you to reconsider.

Call off this trip,” they wrote in a letter that I obtained.

The letter is signed by Representative Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Representative Jim Himes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Patel has not replied to the letter and the FBI has not publicly confirmed his travel plans.

Neither the FBI nor the White House responded to my multiple requests for comment.

With so little information available either publicly or internally, the anxiety within the agency Patel leads has only grown.

Seventeen current and former FBI and Department of Justice officials, intelligence officials, and others familiar with the situation told me they were deeply worried by a variety of decisions that suggest ever-closer ties between the Trump administration and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime.

Many of the officials would speak only on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation if their name appeared in this story.