The FBI has fired at least five intelligence analysts who worked on a withdrawn 2023 internal assessment from its Richmond Field Office that examined so‑called “radical traditionalist” Catholic ideology and whether it intersected with racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists. The move is the latest twist in a long‑running fight over what that memo got wrong, what it says about religious bias inside federal law enforcement, and how the bureau polices its own analysts.
According to CBS News, multiple sources said the bureau quietly dismissed analysts tied to the Richmond product, while officially refusing to comment on personnel matters. CBS also reports that the terminations were first flagged by MS Now and notes that the bureau has been rolling out a string of personnel changes tied to other controversial internal issues over the past year.
Inspector General Flags Bad Tradecraft, Not Directed Bias
An April 18, 2024 letter from the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General found that the Richmond “Domain Perspective” did not meet analytic tradecraft standards and contained errors in professional judgment. At the same time, the watchdog said it did not uncover evidence that anyone ordered analysts to link violent extremists to particular religions. Both the OIG and the FBI’s own Strategic Review pointed to weak approval processes and recommended tighter controls on how sensitive intelligence products are vetted and distributed. DOJ Office of the Inspector General
Task Force Scrutiny and a Wider Political Storm
The Richmond memo also showed up in the Justice Department’s Task Force to Eradicate Anti‑Christian Bias report, which said the FBI had “investigated, monitored, tracked and scrutinized traditional Catholics who had engaged in no criminal misconduct” and knocked Richmond’s reliance on certain outside sources. Justice Department
The task force’s language landed amid broader political attacks on the bureau. The civil‑rights watchdog the Southern Poverty Law Center, which was referenced in earlier Richmond analyses, has itself faced separate federal criminal charges, adding more fuel to the debate over who gets to label which groups “extremist” in the first place. AP
Federal reviews say the FBI tightened controls after the Richmond product came to light. The bureau’s Strategic Review and the OIG letter both report that the agency “instituted a number of corrective actions, including enhancing approval requirements” for intelligence products on sensitive domestic‑terrorism topics, and formally admonished staff involved in drafting the memo. The reviews stopped short of finding malicious intent, but they did conclude that analytic judgment and supervisory oversight fell short of expectations. DOJ OIG
Inside the Making of the Richmond Memo
Documents released to Congress show the Richmond Field Office began drafting the assessment in late 2022 and coordinated with other field offices, as well as the FBI’s London office, while building out background on a predicated domestic‑terrorism investigation that served as the memo’s factual base. Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee say internal emails and records indicate the memo’s scope and circulation inside the bureau were broader than officials first acknowledged. House Judiciary Committee
Political Fallout and What Comes Next
The firings arrive after months of the Richmond memo being wielded on Capitol Hill and in advocacy circles as Exhibit A in allegations of anti‑Christian bias at the FBI. CBS News notes that the analyst dismissals are part of a broader pattern of personnel moves the bureau has taken since last year, as it tries to show it is cleaning up its own messes.
Congressional committees and Justice Department watchdogs remain poised to keep pressing for documents, emails and sworn testimony. Lawmakers who have dug into the Richmond memo say they are not done yet. For now, the FBI’s public response consists of internal admonishments and stricter approval rules for sensitive intelligence products. Whether that combination satisfies critics on either side of the aisle is a fight that looks far from finished. House Judiciary Committee
