I’m Not a Constitutional Scholar” — Jeff Merkley Confronts FBI Director Kash Patel on Due Process

The recent interrogation of FBI Director Kash Patel by Senator Jeff Merkley is a masterclass in the kind of bureaucratic evasion that should chill the blood of every American. When asked a foundational, yes-or-no question about whether the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone in America, Patel’s retreat into the pathetic “I’m not a constitutional scholar” defense wasn’t just stunning; it was a calculated insult to the office he holds. It is the ultimate hypocrisy for a man who leads the nation’s premier law enforcement agency—and who took a solemn oath to the Constitution—to pretend that the basic concept of due process is some esoteric riddle reserved for Ivy League academics.

The Fifth Amendment isn’t a suggestion, and it isn’t a “technicality” that only applies when it’s politically convenient for the ruling class. It is the “freedom clause,” a hard-won safeguard designed specifically to prevent an overaggressive government from arbitrarily snatching life, liberty, or property. Merkley’s questioning exposed a terrifying reality: the people currently at the helm of our federal institutions view these protections as obstacles to be navigated rather than principles to be upheld.

The hypocrisy reaches a fever pitch when Patel attempts to hide behind his past as a public defender. He claims this background makes him “more aware” of due process than his predecessors, yet in the same breath, he refuses to acknowledge its application to hundreds of individuals swept off American streets and deported without a hearing. This is a classic “not my department” shell game. Patel tries to silo the FBI’s actions away from the broader constitutional violation, claiming the FBI only “arrests those that have violated the law” while ignoring the fact that an arrest is the very moment the clock on due process starts ticking.

If the FBI assists in the mass detention of individuals without legal recourse, they are not merely “arresting”; they are participating in a systemic breakdown of the rule of law. Patel’s refusal to comment on whether these individuals were “supposed to be afforded due process” is a cowardly abdication of responsibility. The Supreme Court has been crystal clear for decades: the language of the Constitution says “no person,” not “no citizen.” By playing dumb on this settled legal fact, Patel isn’t just being difficult—he is signaling that under his watch, the FBI will operate in a constitutional vacuum whenever it suits the administration’s agenda.

The danger of this mindset cannot be overstated. When a Director of the FBI suggests that he cannot “call the balls and strikes” on constitutional violations because he isn’t a “scholar,” he is effectively saying that the Constitution is whatever the guy in charge says it is at any given moment. This is the definition of authoritarianism disguised as procedural modesty. It creates a massive accountability gap where every agency points the finger at someone else while fundamental rights are ground into the dirt.

The left-wing establishment often cries about “threats to democracy,” yet here we have a clear, documented refusal by a top official to affirm the most basic protection of our republic. The hypocrisy is deafening. If a leader cannot—or will not—state that every person on American soil is entitled to the protections of the law, then that leader has no business wielding the power of the state.

Rights are not a buffet. You don’t get to pick and choose which ones to honor based on who is being targeted. History is littered with the remains of societies that thought they could suspend due process for “unpopular” groups without eventually losing it for everyone else. Today it is immigrants; tomorrow it will be political dissidents, protesters, or anyone who dares to question the narrative of the day.

Patel’s eventual, reluctant promise to “honor” due process at the end of the hearing was a hollow gesture, extracted only after he was backed into a corner. It carries no weight because he has already demonstrated a fundamental lack of respect for the principle itself. We are living in an era where the people who scream the loudest about “law and order” are the first to ignore the very laws that keep us free. This hearing was a grim reminder that our constitutional protections are only as strong as the people tasked with defending them—and right now, the defense looks dangerously thin.