Complaint concerning Kash Patel, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation — appearance with Rep. Derrick Van Orden

September 16, 2026 

Hatch Act Unit U.S. Office of Special Counsel 1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218 Washington, D.C. 20036-4505 

Filed via electronic mail to: hatchact@osc.gov 

Re: Complaint concerning Kash Patel, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation — appearance with Rep. Derrick Van Orden, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, August 3, 2026 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Steady State is an organization of more than 430 former national security, intelligence, diplomatic, military, law enforcement, and homeland security officials who served across administrations of both parties. We write to request that the Office examine whether Kash Patel, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, violated 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1) and 5 C.F.R. § 734.302 in connection with an appearance he made with Rep. Derrick Van Orden in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, on Monday, August 3, 2026. 

The conduct at issue is narrow and we state it plainly at the outset. Eight days before the Wisconsin primary that would choose Rep. Derrick Van Orden’s general-election opponent, and with in-person absentee voting already under way, the Director appeared in official capacity alongside the Member. Asked how important it was that the Member be reelected, the Director first declined — he could not “specifically comment on races,” as Wisconsin Public Radio quoted him, or, in the Leader-Telegram’s paraphrase, could not comment on any campaigns as the FBI director. Wisconsin Public Radio then quoted him as calling the Member “a relentless supporter of law enforcement,” attributing to the Member’s backing “the largest criminal reduction in U.S. history,” saying “if I could replicate him, I would,” and adding that he hoped “to see him back in Washington for a long time to come.” The Leader-Telegram, reporting independently, recorded the same praise, “and that is what they want in Washington, D.C.” 

We do not have a recording of the exchange. Two newsrooms separately reported the exchange. Their accounts agree in substance concerning the Director’s refusal to comment on campaigns and his praise of the Member’s support for law enforcement. Only Wisconsin Public Radio reports the quoted expression of hope that the Member remain in Washington. Two others that covered the appearance did not report it, and it does not appear in any of the broadcast packages or the subscription-service episode we reviewed. We ask the Office to obtain the stations’ unedited footage and any Bureau recording, and to decide the questions set out below on that record. 

We do not contend that the event was a campaign rally, and we set out below the several respects in which it was presented as official Bureau business. The official character of the appearance does not itself answer the Hatch Act question. If the statements described in Part I were political activity, the Director’s official capacity is not a defense but part of what § 7323(a)(1) and § 734.302 reach: the use of official authority or influence for the purpose of affecting the result of an election. This Office has so held, in its report to the President concerning the Secretary of the Navy, who spoke on official travel and in his official capacity; we address that matter, and the respects in which it differs from this one, in Part VIII.1 

I. The appearance 

Two newsrooms separately reported an exchange at the appearance. We have not established whether it occurred in an unaired portion of the discussion, at the press availability that followed, or elsewhere at the event; the recordings we reviewed, none of which contains it, are described in Part XII. Wisconsin Public Radio wrote: 

When asked about the importance of Van Orden winning his reelection campaign, Patel said he can’t “specifically comment on races, but what I can tell you is that Congressman Van Orden has been a relentless supporter of law enforcement.” Patel claimed that Trump’s administration has overseen “the largest criminal reduction in U.S. history” with Van Orden’s backing. 

The same report continues, in the Director's words: “So, if I could replicate him, I would...That's above my pay grade. But I hope to see him back in Washington for a long time to come.”2 

The Leader-Telegram, whose photographer was present, reported the same exchange independently: 

When asked about how important it would be for Van Orden to be reelected, Patel said he cannot comment on any campaigns as the FBI director. He did say Van 

1 Report of Prohibited Political Activity Under the Hatch Act, OSC File No. HA-24-000104 (Aug. 6, 2024), transmitted to the President Sept. 5, 2024 (Dellinger, Special Counsel), available at osc.gov. 2 Rich Kremer, At event with FBI director Kash Patel, Van Orden calls for fighting fraud, Wisconsin Public Radio (Aug. 3, 2026), wpr.org; archived Aug. 3, 2026, 10:05:02 p.m. CDT, web.archive.org. Matthew Baughman, Van Orden, Patel speak with law enforcement in EC, Leader-Telegram (Aug. 3, 2026), leadertelegram.com; archived Aug. 4, 2026, 9:26:26 p.m. CDT, web.archive.org. The two quoted passages appear in the order set out here, separated in the published article by a sentence of the reporter's own; we do not represent them as a single continuous utterance. 

Orden has been a relentless supporter of law enforcement, and that is what they want in Washington, D.C. 

Wisconsin Public Radio also reported that the Director called the Member “one of the best congressmen in the United States.”3 

The words we ask the Office to examine are these: the hope that the Member be “back in Washington for a long time to come,” the statement that “if I could replicate him, I would,” and the attribution of the Administration’s record to the Member’s backing — each given in answer to a question about the importance of his reelection, and after the Director had said he could not comment on races. 

On Monday, August 3, 2026, Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) hosted an event in the JAMF Theatre at the Pablo Center at the Confluence in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, with Director Patel. It was billed as a “fireside chat” with local law enforcement, and was attended by roughly fifty local police officers and sheriffs.4 The discussion was moderated by Kelly Bakken, the chief of police of Altoona, Wisconsin.5 6 Special Agent in Charge Alan Karr of the Bureau's Milwaukee Field Office appeared on the panel with them. 

The Director appeared throughout in his official capacity and under his official title. He wore a shirt bearing the Bureau's badge on the chest and the letters “FBI” on the sleeve. Local coverage identified him on screen as “Kash Patel, Director, FBI.”7 

Patel and Van Orden also took questions on that stage, with uniformed officers behind them and WQOW, News 3 Now, and WEAU microphones on the stand. 

II. The timing 

Wisconsin's partisan primary was held eight days later, on Tuesday, August 11, 2026. In-person absentee voting was already under way during the week of the appearance.8 The Member was 

3 Kremer, supra. This particular quotation appears in that report alone; it is not carried by the Leader-Telegram. 4 WQOW News 18 reports “over 50 law enforcement officers representing over a dozen different agencies,” wqow.com. The Director’s own post describes “70 brilliant regional law enforcement partners.” 5 John Franklin, WEAU 13 News (Aug. 3, 2026) (“The discussion was moderated by Altoona Police Chief Kelly Bakken, and it also included Alan Karr, the special agent in charge of the FBI Milwaukee field office.”), weau.com; archived Aug. 4, 2026, web.archive.org. WQOW, which described the format in more detail, names no moderator. 6 Kremer, supra; Baughman, supra. 7 The insignia and the lower third are visible in the recordings identified in Part XII. The Bureau badge on the chest and the letters “FBI” on the left sleeve appear in the WEAU 13 News package; the lower third “Kash Patel / Director, FBI” appears in the WQOW News 18 package. 8 WQOW News 18 (Eau Claire), Elliot Adams, Aug. 3, 2026 (“Wisconsin partisan primary voting is already underway, with in-person absentee voting running through the end of this week. In addition to the 3rd Congressional District Democratic candidate race, voters will also decide who the Democratic gubernatorial candidate will be on November's ballot.”); wqow.com; archived Aug. 5, 2026, web.archive.org. 

unopposed for the Republican nomination; the primary would determine which of two Democratic candidates would face him in the general election of November 3, 2026.9 10 

III. The Director's own publications 

At 8:11 p.m. Eastern on the evening of the appearance, the Director published a post from @FBIDirectorKash, the account presented as his official account as Director.11 It reads in part: “Great to be in Wisconsin with @RepVanOrden addressing a group of 70 brilliant regional law enforcement partners working with the FBI to deliver the most successful run of crime reduction in American history.” The post closes: “Special thanks to Rep. Derrick Van Orden from WI-3 and Kelly Bakken, Chief of the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association for hosting us...” 12 

Two days later, at 2:14 p.m. Eastern on August 5, the Member published a post from his official House account: “It was great to host @FBIDirectorKash and our local law enforcement from across #WI03 in Eau Claire on Monday,” accompanied by a photograph of some forty-five officers, many in uniform, arrayed on the theatre stage.13 

The Director's own account reposted the Member's post the same afternoon.14 

IV. The Bureau’s treatment of the appearance 

As of the date of this letter, the Bureau's Speeches and Testimony page does not list the Eau Claire appearance, and the news page of the Milwaukee Field Office — in whose territory the appearance occurred — carries no item concerning it.15 The Milwaukee Field Office’s X account did describe the day, the following morning, as a visit to the Milwaukee office together with the Eau Claire discussion.16 A commercial subscription service, Fox Nation, carried the discussion as an episode of a series of the Director's official appearances.17 

9 Baughman, supra (“Although unopposed in the Republican Party, in November he will go up against whoever wins the Democratic primary on Tuesday, Aug. 11.”) 10 Wisconsin Public Radio characterized the appearance as that of “the 10th member of President Donald Trump’s administration to appear with Van Orden as the Prairie du Chien Republican seeks reelection.” Kremer, supra. That characterization is the reporter’s, and we offer it as such. 11 Profile captured Sept. 13, 2026 at perma.cc/T77S-28ET; the account’s biography reads, in its entirety, “Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, #9,” and it is presented as the Director’s official account. 12 @FBIDirectorKash, X (Aug. 3, 2026, 8:11:41 p.m. EDT), x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2084432044801556921; archived at perma.cc/3DLK-P25C. The time is derived from the post identifier, which encodes it. Chief Bakken is the Chief of Police of Altoona, Wisconsin; on the association office the Director attributes to her, see note below. 13 @RepVanOrden, X (Aug. 5, 2026, 2:14:19 p.m. EDT), x.com/RepVanOrden/status/2085066886945935789; archived at perma.cc/8PY6-6QBB. 14 @FBIDirectorKash, X (Aug. 5, 2026, 2:16:15 p.m. EDT), x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2085067373338349601; archived at perma.cc/A524-CS6A. Both times are derived from the posts’ identifiers, which encode them; X does not display the time of a repost. 15 fbi.gov/news/speeches-and-testimony; fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/milwaukee/news. We state this as the result of our own review of those two pages and no others. 16 @FBIMilwaukee, X (Aug. 4, 2026, 11:30:22 a.m. EDT), x.com/FBIMilwaukee/status/2084663242605895903. 17 “(8/3) Enhancing Fed & Local WI Agency Cooperation,” FBI Director Kash Patel Live Remarks, season 2, episode 3, 14:07, primevideo.com/detail/0ISY7RC6I7UTQMJHHXYTYHNIKJ; archived at perma.cc/M4FD-27XT. 

The morning leg in Milwaukee is relevant for a separate reason, addressed in Part VII below: if any part of the Eau Claire appearance was political activity, the cost-allocation rules at 5 C.F.R. § 734.503, which govern days of mixed official and political engagements, would bear on August 3. 

V. The Director is subject to 5 C.F.R. § 734.302 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation appears on the list of agencies whose employees are subject to the further restrictions of subpart D.18 But § 734.401(b) excludes from subpart D “[e]mployees appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate in the agencies and positions described in paragraph (a).” The statute is to the same effect.19 Subpart E then provides that Senate-confirmed presidential appointees “are subject to the provisions of subparts B and C of this part.”20 

The Director is a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee. He is therefore outside subpart D and within subpart C, and § 734.302 applies to him. We note this expressly because the natural first response — that the further restrictions do not reach a Senate-confirmed appointee — is correct and beside the point. 

VI. Section 7323(a)(1) and § 734.302 

Section 7323(a)(1) provides that an employee may not “use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”21 The implementing regulation repeats the prohibition and identifies particular activities that fall within it, including “[u]sing his or her official title while participating in political activity.”22 “Political activity” means “an activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.”23 

We ask the Office to consider two questions in sequence. The first is whether the statements described in Part I were political activity within the meaning of § 734.101. Only if they were does the second arise: whether, in making them, the Director used his official authority or influence for the purpose of affecting the result of an election, or his official title, within the meaning of § 7323(a)(1) and § 734.302. 

VII. Section 7324 and the cost question 

Section 7324(a) bars an employee from engaging in political activity while on duty, and separately bars such activity while the employee is wearing a uniform or official insignia identifying his office or 

18 5 C.F.R. § 734.401(a)(3). 19 5 U.S.C. § 7323(b)(2)(A) (“No employee described under subparagraph (B) (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may take an active part in political management or political campaigns.”) 20 5 C.F.R. § 734.501. 21 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1). 22 5 C.F.R. § 734.302(a), (b)(1). 23 5 C.F.R. § 734.101. 

position.24 The appearance took place on a Monday afternoon during normal business hours, and the Director wore Bureau insignia throughout. Subsection (b) permits certain Senate-confirmed appointees who determine policy to engage in activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a), but only where “the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States,” with allocation governed by 5 C.F.R. § 734.503.25 

The Director appears likely to be an employee described in § 7324(b)(2) and 5 C.F.R. § 734.502(a) — one whose duties continue outside normal hours and away from his normal duty post, and who determines policies to be pursued in the nationwide administration of federal laws — though that is for the Office to confirm. If he is, the exception permits political activity while on duty or in official insignia only on the condition that its costs are not borne by the Treasury. It does not reach § 7323(a)(1): reimbursement would not cure a use of official authority or influence for the purpose of affecting the result of an election. We ask the Office to determine whether any costs legally attributable to political activity required reimbursement under § 734.503, taking account of that section’s allocation rules, its exclusions, and its de minimis provision. If the Office finds political activity, it should determine whether and how that activity affects the classification and allocation of the trip’s costs — including whether the activity was minor and clearly incidental to an otherwise official day, and whether any reimbursement required was made within a reasonable period. Costs attributable to official activity, including the Milwaukee engagement itself, remain official; only nonexcluded costs legally allocable to the political activity are in question. Because the Member is a candidate for federal office, § 734.503(d) may require the allocation method used under the Federal Election Campaign Act rather than the time-based formula of § 734.503(c); we do not attempt to resolve which applies.26 

VIII. This Office's own precedent 

On September 5, 2024, the Office announced several Hatch Act enforcement decisions on the same day, three of them concerning senior officials.27 Taken together they mark the line the Office drew. 

The Office found that the Secretary of the Navy violated the Act by “advocating for and against presidential candidates while appearing in his official capacity” and by using “his official authority or influence for the purpose of affecting the result of an election.” The Special Counsel transmitted a report to the President under 5 U.S.C. § 1215(b).28 The report records that the Secretary was “on official travel” and participated “in his official capacity as Secretary of the Navy.” That the appearances were official did not insulate the statements; it was the official capacity in which the Secretary engaged in electoral advocacy that brought his conduct within § 7323(a)(1). 

24 5 U.S.C. § 7324(a). 25 5 U.S.C. § 7324(b); 5 C.F.R. § 734.503. 26 5 C.F.R. § 734.503(d); U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Hatch Act guidance on mixed travel by presidential appointees with Senate confirmation, osc.gov (distinguishing federal elections, allocated under the Federal Election Campaign Act and FEC regulations, from other elections, apportioned by time). 27 OSC Announces Hatch Act Enforcement Decisions (Sept. 5, 2024), osc.gov. 28 HA-24-000104, supra. 

We do not claim the statements are alike in degree. Secretary Del Toro said he was “confident that the American people will step up to the plate come November and support President Biden for a second term as our Commander-in-Chief,” and that the country “cannot afford to have a president who aligns himself with autocratic dictators.” Director Patel first said he could not comment on races, then praised an incumbent Member’s support for law enforcement and said he hoped to see him back in Washington. We ask whether, once the election was raised, an official-capacity answer of that kind was still activity directed toward that candidate’s electoral success.29 

The Office closed the other two senior-official matters. A letter by the Secretary of Education referring to “Republican elected officials” was closed because, in the Office's words, it “does not refer to candidates, elections, or voting.” A referral from the Department of Justice's Inspector General concerning a former Attorney General's public statements about an election-fraud investigation was likewise closed.30 

Del Toro and Cardona mark useful opposite sides of the line. In Del Toro, the Office found a violation where an official-capacity communication became electoral advocacy; in Cardona, it found no violation where the communication did not refer to candidates, elections, or voting. The enforcement release says little about the Barr closure, but the advisory the Office issued the same day explains it: the Department’s public statement about an election-fraud investigation had, “arguably unnecessarily,” named a presidential candidate, and the Office concluded that the facts did not give rise to a violation. Barr and Cardona thus establish that a reference to a party, or the identification of a candidate, in the course of describing agency business is not by itself electoral advocacy. Neither rule reaches what is alleged here, which is not the identification of a candidate but an expressed hope, in answer to a question about his reelection, that he remain in Washington. The same advisory also explains that an official communication may constitute political activity where it references voting or an upcoming election, or contains advocacy concerning a candidate’s electoral prospects.31 Director Patel did not raise the election. He was asked how important it was that a named candidate be reelected, eight days before the primary that would determine that candidate’s general-election opponent, and answered by praising him, crediting the Administration’s record to his backing, and expressing a hope to see him “back in Washington for a long time to come.” Whether an answer of that kind, to that question, is advocacy concerning a candidate’s electoral prospects is the question we ask the Office to examine. 

IX. Anticipated responses 

Several facts cut against the conclusion we ask the Office to consider, and we set them out rather than leave them to be discovered. 

29 HA-24-000104, supra, Factual Findings. 30 OSC Release, supra. We disclose the Barr closure because it arrived through the Inspector General channel and concerned Department statements about an election matter; we do not think it controls here, for the reason given in the text. The advisory cited in the note following explains the closure at 2–3 and n.7. 31 Hatch Act Advisory Opinion Regarding Official Agency Communications (Sept. 5, 2024), osc.gov. The advisory also states that in discussions of pending legislation or government policy, references to a political party, without more, typically do not constitute political activity. 

First, the event was presented as official Bureau business. A title slide bearing the Bureau's seal was displayed on stage, reading “Wisconsin Law Enforcement Partners Fireside Chat — Stronger Together. Safer Communities. Partnering Together to Protect Wisconsin”;32 the discussion concerned the National Academy, counter-unmanned-aircraft training, intelligence sharing, and fraud enforcement. Second, the Director’s post thanked the Member and Chief Kelly Bakken “for hosting us” and identified Chief Bakken with the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association; association records identify a different individual as its president at the relevant time.33 Third, every publication by either principal about the appearance that we have identified is framed as public-safety partnership and contains no electoral content. Fourth, the Member's publications came from his official House accounts; we have identified no promotion of the appearance by any campaign account. 

We do not dispute any of this, and none of it is dispositive. The Secretary of the Navy was on official travel in official capacity when this Office found a violation. That the election was raised by a questioner rather than by the Director does not preclude a violation, though it bears on how his answer should be read. In the matter of the Commissioner of Social Security, the Office found a violation notwithstanding the Commissioner’s statement that he could not tell anyone how to vote, and noted that he had himself introduced voting and a candidate into an otherwise official interview. Here the Director did not introduce the subject, and his answer was less explicit; but the disclaimer with which he began is, on the Office’s own reasoning, not dispositive. What matters is whether the official, once the election was raised, used his official position to engage in activity directed toward a candidate’s electoral success or failure.34 

The anticipated response is that an agency head may praise a Member’s support for the agency’s mission and may express a desire to continue working with that Member, and that a first sentence declining to comment on campaigns shows the Director staying on the permitted side of the line. That response is strongest if the Office concludes that “back in Washington for a long time to come,” given in answer to a question about reelection, is language about tenure and partnership rather than about the election. We think the question asked, the timing, and the reported wording make that a question the Office should resolve on a complete record rather than accept as self-evident. 

We note again the limits of our own evidence. It is reported by two newsrooms, in renderings that agree in substance as to the decline-to-comment and the praise of the Member as a supporter of law 

32 The slide is legible at 1:35 of the WEAU 13 News package identified in Part XII, and in that station’s posted video, weau.com/video/2026/08/04/fbi-director-kash-patel-joins-congressman-derrick-van-orden-discussion-eau-claire/. Four people sat on the stage; one wore a local police uniform. 33 As of August 3, 2026, Kelly Bakken was the Chief of Police of Altoona, Wisconsin, altoonawi.gov. The association’s elected office is President; its board listed Daniel Thompson of Waukesha in that office both before and after the appearance, wichiefs.org; Chief Bakken appears on the association’s past-presidents page as its 2025 president, wichiefs.org/wcpa-past-presidents. We note the discrepancy for accuracy and draw no inference from it about whether the association was involved in convening the event. 34 Report of Prohibited Political Activity Under the Hatch Act, Martin O’Malley, OSC File No. HA-25-000080 (Apr. 25, 2025), transmitted to the President May 16, 2025 (Baldis, for the Special Counsel), available at osc.gov. 

enforcement; the exact words of the Director's quoted answer appear in one of them. Both reports were published within a day of the appearance, and both were captured by a third-party archive before the revision each article now displays; the passages we rely on are identical in the archived and current versions.35 We identify below the recordings we reviewed and the unedited footage that, if obtained, could settle the wording. 

X. Questions warranting examination 

Question 3 addresses the separate application of § 7324, which arises only if the statements were political activity; Question 4 seeks facts bearing on the foregoing questions. 

1. Whether the statements described in Part I were “political activity” within the meaning of 5 C.F.R. § 734.101 — that is, activity directed toward the success or failure of a candidate for partisan political office. 

2. If so, whether the Director used his official authority or influence for the purpose of affecting the result of an election, or used his official title while participating in that activity, within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1) and 5 C.F.R. § 734.302(a) and (b)(1). 

3. If the Office finds that the statements were political activity, whether the activity occurred in circumstances prohibited by 5 U.S.C. § 7324(a)(1) or (a)(3); whether any nonexcluded cost legally allocable to that activity under 5 C.F.R. § 734.503(c) or (d), including any such share of the cost of travel to and from Wisconsin on August 3, 2026, was paid from money derived from the Treasury and not reimbursed within a reasonable period; and whether any political committee or other non-federal source paid or reimbursed any such cost. 

4. Who organized, invited attendees to, and paid for the use of the JAMF Theatre at the Pablo Center at the Confluence on August 3, 2026; in what respect the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, the Member’s office, the Member’s campaign, and the Bureau each participated in doing so; and any communications between the Bureau and the Member’s office or campaign concerning the arrangement or promotion of the appearance. 

XI. Requested action 

We request that the Office open an investigation into the questions set out above. We further request that the Office direct the preservation of records bearing on them, including the Director’s August 3 schedule, duty status and travel authorization; any voucher, reimbursement or cost-allocation record for the August 3 travel and appearance; correspondence with the Member’s office, the Member’s campaign, and the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association concerning the arrangement of the appearance; any Bureau recording of the discussion or the press availability. The reporters whose accounts we rely on, Rich Kremer of Wisconsin Public Radio and Matthew Baughman of the 

35 Archived Aug. 3, 2026, 10:05:02 p.m. CDT (web.archive.org (WPR)) and Aug. 4, 2026, 9:26:26 p.m. CDT (web.archive.org (Leader-Telegram)). 

Leader-Telegram, may hold recordings or contemporaneous notes. We identify them so that the Office may seek their cooperation; we make no representation that either will provide them. 

Should the Office find a violation and determine that disciplinary action is warranted, 5 U.S.C. § 1215(b) directs that the complaint and supporting statement, with any response, be presented to the President for appropriate action in the case of an employee in a confidential, policy-making, policy-determining, or policy-advocating position appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is the course the Special Counsel followed in the matter of the Secretary of the Navy, and we ask that it be followed here.36 

XII. The recordings, and how they were handled 

We have enclosed and retained copies and archived captures of the two articles, and hold four broadcast recordings bearing on the appearance, which we will provide to the Office on request. They are: two packages from News 3 Now (WISC-TV, Madison) of 91.254 and 52.338 seconds; a package from WQOW News 18 of 117.005 seconds; and a package from WEAU 13 News of 123.827 seconds. Each is H.264 video; the first three are 1280 by 720 and the WEAU file, which is a capture of the broadcast rather than the station’s own file, is 960 by 540. We have altered none of them, and the file identifiers set out in the accompanying note were measured from the copies we hold.37 

We have located no official transcript of the appearance, and published renderings of the Director's remarks differ in places. Passages were machine-transcribed and then checked by ear. Where renderings differ we have not quoted the passage. We do not rely on the closed captions supplied by the streaming service, which are demonstrably inaccurate.38 

None of these recordings contains the exchange set out in Part I. We have also reviewed the Fox Nation episode described in Part IV — a fourteen-minute presentation of the discussion — and it does not contain the exchange either. The exchange therefore occurred, we infer, at the press availability or in an unaired portion of the discussion; the recordings neither confirm nor fix its location. 

XIII. Candor 

The Steady State has previously written to this Office concerning the conduct of senior officials during the current election cycle, including a complaint dated September 3, 2026 and submitted September 4, 2026, which the Office has docketed as HA-26-000451 and HA-26-000480, concerning an August 14, 2026 event in Nassau County, New York that named Director Patel 

36 5 U.S.C. § 1215(b); HA-24-000104, supra. 37 SHA-256 values of the four files: News 3 Now, 91.254 s, 54acffc4506e5ffd31542ea70a0ed6c934e8d4da7d22ba7a089a74d39cba6eb0; News 3 Now, 52.338 s, bdf2b4afced57c57eb8bc9b481ce507df45129ae97745b16f8bb4403d9a45e25; WQOW News 18, 117.005 s, 1796c06d2f8803f1a5e58bbce527c0bb5d6465d0f43715522209e7350a0c894c; WEAU 13 News, 123.827 s, d1b5e95a99e44aa2802c4ac100a84b1492d274f83180f9970e81229ef63cc932. 38 The service’s captions render “740 drone interdictions at our 78 venues” as “740 John interdictions under 70 in use.” 

among its subjects. We prepared this complaint independently and are not aware of any complaint filed with this Office by any other person concerning the August 3, 2026 appearance. 

XIV. Equal application 

We ask the Office to apply the Act as it has applied it before, without regard to the party of the official or of the candidate. The decisions we rely upon concern officials of a previous administration; we cite them because they state the rule, and we would expect the same rule to govern here. 

We appreciate the Office's attention to this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Steven A. Cash Executive Director The Steady State hqs@thesteadystate.org (212) 685-9660 

Enclosures: (1) Rich Kremer, At event with FBI director Kash Patel, Van Orden calls for fighting fraud, Wisconsin Public Radio, Aug. 3, 2026, with archive capture of Aug. 3, 2026, 10:05:02 p.m. CDT; (2) Matthew Baughman, Van Orden, Patel speak with law enforcement in EC, Leader-Telegram, Aug. 3, 2026, with archive capture of Aug. 4, 2026, 9:26:26 p.m. CDT.