Trump Picked Them for a Reason: Give Bondi and Patel Time to Work

In an age saturated with impatience, political urgency often blurs into disillusionment. Many in the Republican base, eager for swift and public retribution against a weaponized bureaucracy, have trained their frustrations on two key Trump appointees: Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel. Both were heralded as agents of reform, warriors to root out corruption within their respective institutions. Yet, to some, their tenure appears quiet, even docile. This view is mistaken.

Bondi and Patel have not failed the moment, they are precisely meeting it. But the work of tearing down the administrative state is neither glamorous nor immediate. It is, like surgery, meticulous and often hidden from view.

Let us begin with what cannot be denied: results. Bondi has been Attorney General for just 90 days, and under her Department of Justice more than 17,000 prosecutions have been initiated. Patel, only 75 days into his tenure as Director of the FBI, presides over an agency that has made over 18,000 arrests in that same period. These are not small numbers. They reflect a machine still operating, but now being steered, slowly, deliberately, in a different direction.

These figures should already complicate the charge that "nothing is happening." But to appreciate the scale of the work ahead, we must look beyond raw numbers. The deeper mission of this administration is not merely to punish wrongdoers, but to unearth and dismantle the vast, embedded network of institutional rot, often euphemized as the deep state, that has metastasized throughout the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Consider the Civil Rights Division at DOJ, long a stronghold of progressive legal activism. Within 90 days, Bondi and her Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon has overseen the departure, either through resignation or separation incentives, of more than half of its lawyers. That alone signals a tectonic shift. But this is not just a personnel change; it is a philosophical redirection. Bondi is asking a question rarely posed in Washington: who among these 10,000 DOJ lawyers is loyal not to the bureaucracy, but to the Constitution? Finding the answer is neither fast nor glamorous. Reading just one resume per lawyer would take five months of full-time effort. And of course, each departure demands a replacement, one who is both ideologically sound and professionally competent. That search cannot be outsourced to headhunters.

Kash Patel, likewise, has inherited an institution riddled with politicization. The FBI under Comey and Wray became synonymous with selective enforcement, leaking, and bureaucratic insubordination. Patel’s response has been swift, though not theatrical. Twenty senior officials have been removed, retired, or reassigned. More profoundly, over 1,500 agents have been constructively terminated, moved from their preferred offices in D.C. to regional field posts, with many choosing to resign. In a bureaucracy of nearly 38,000, this kind of targeted attrition represents meaningful reform. And yet, it is the quiet work of trench warfare, not the pyrotechnics some seem to expect.

Why does it feel slow? Because the swamp cannot be drained in a day. Government, by design, resists rapid change. Civil service protections, union contracts, activist judges, and congressional oversight all conspire to preserve inertia. Add to this the need to build trust within the ranks, to install leaders who will not merely obey orders but champion a renewed mission, and one begins to see the enormity of the task. Firing is easy; replacing with the right people is not.

Critics might still ask, what of the secrets? Where are the long-suppressed files on JFK, MLK, or Epstein? Hasn’t Trump ordered their release? He has, and that matters. But declassification is not as simple as flipping a switch. Many of the most damning materials were likely destroyed, or buried beneath layers of classification that serve more to protect institutions than to guard national security. A presidential order to release is a beginning, not a conclusion. Bondi and Patel are under no illusions about the task ahead. But treating them as saboteurs for failing to produce miracles in 75 to 90 days is both unfair and strategically unwise.

There is, finally, a matter of trust. Trump selected these individuals because he believed them fit for the task. If we lose faith in that judgment, then the crisis is not with Bondi or Patel, but with the very foundation of this movement. Trump governs not by mob demand, but by strategic delegation. He has put Bondi and Patel in place because he understands the stakes, the tempo, and the battlefield. Theirs is a long war, not a viral skirmish.

Every administration is limited by time, personnel, and the staggering inertia of Washington’s permanent class. Yet Bondi and Patel have done more in their first three months than most agency heads do in three years. They deserve not our ire, but our support. To doubt them now is to doubt Trump’s judgment and to invite the very chaos the opposition craves.

In the end, conservative governance is not a matter of spectacle but of structure. It is not always noisy. Sometimes, the most revolutionary acts are the quietest: a memo rewritten, a desk reassigned, a bureaucrat made irrelevant. That is the work now underway.

And it is working.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏.