Two former FBI agents are arguing in separate lawsuits that Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) played a significant role in their firings, actions the senators say followed his release of unredacted materials about the criminal investigation into President Trump.

The litigation raises questions about Grassley's sprawling investigation into special counsel Jack Smith's Arctic Frost probe and his role in what Republicans have described as addressing "rot" at the FBI. The suits do not name Grassley as a defendant but point to his actions as precipitating factors in the terminations of agents who worked on former special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

What the Right Is Saying

Grassley's office defended his document releases and oversight work. Clare Slattery, a spokesperson for Grassley, rejected claims that the senator played an improper role in agent firings.

"The Hill is parroting a totally false narrative designed to malign Chairman Grassley's dogged oversight and intimidate the brave whistleblowers who've risked their careers to expose the truth behind the weaponized Arctic Frost investigation through the provision of thousands of pages of records that were hidden from the public," Slattery said in a statement.

Grassley, 92, is the oldest sitting senator. His office noted it is "Grassley's longstanding office policy to leave the names of taxpayer-funded government personnel unredacted in public document productions." The spokesperson added: "The FBI makes its own personnel decisions."

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) praised Grassley as "the father of whistleblower legislation." Jason Foster, former chief investigative counsel to Grassley now chairing Empower Oversight, defended the senator's approach. "For Sen. Grassley's entire history, he has always done this work through his oversight letters and the bit-by-bit release of information," Foster said.

"I think what Chairman Grassley recognizes is that to get the full story, there's a great value to partnering with the public and the press by generating interest in a controversy and releasing new information," Foster added. He argued transparency ensures "direct public accountability through transparency for agents who the American people entrust with enormous power and discretion."

What the Left Is Saying

Critics argue Grassley's selective disclosures are part of an orchestrated effort to undermine properly opened investigations. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, described Grassley as having a strong record on whistleblowers but accused him of making disclosures that aid "in a very orchestrated way in completely partisan Trumpist plots."

"We all have to stand up for the rights of whistleblowers, but at the same time, members of Congress should not become transmission belts for conspiracy theories and lies," Raskin told The Hill. "These FBI agents were absolutely the victim of political and ideological discrimination. And I hope that the cases don't demonstrate that Sen. Grassley was part of the effort to get them."

Margaret Donovan, a former federal prosecutor representing two agents suing the FBI, said releasing unredacted agent names has caused online harassment. "It is appalling to me that lawmakers would so carelessly mischaracterize these unredacted disclosures, knowing that the direct result of their actions is to cause an ill-informed online mob to go after honest, hardworking federal law enforcement officers," she said.

Zack Schram, former counsel to Democrats on both the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee as well as the committee's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said traditional investigations release source documents at their conclusion with full context. "When you pull back the veil of an ongoing investigation, particularly for the purpose of getting attention, that is contrary to the interest of a complex, fact-based investigation," he told The Hill.

What the Numbers Show

Grassley has released documents containing the names of nearly 70 FBI agents and employees connected to Smith's investigation, according to The Hill's reporting.

The suits involve approximately 45 agents who were fired. One suit filed in late March by two unnamed FBI employees includes a timeline linking Grassley's document releases to actions taken by FBI Director Kash Patel.

Patel in October of last year said on Fox News that the bureau had released documents "other administrations had hidden away." Days later, Grassley noted "as a result" of his publication of information, Patel had fired more agents. "So, there's already been some accountability because of Director Patel, and I would expect more will come," Grassley said at the time.

The FBI told The Hill it has turned over more than 50,000 pages to Congress, describing this as more than three times the amount provided by the two prior directors combined. Some documents released by Grassley include grand jury materials not typically shared with the public, raising questions about how such protected information reached his office.

The Bottom Line

The lawsuits represent a significant challenge to both Grassley's oversight activities and FBI Director Patel's personnel decisions. A source close to the FBI characterized the firings as an effort by Patel to secure his standing within the Trump administration, suggesting "the director has been looking for people to terminate to please the president." The source said Grassley "farms those up for him," creating a mutually beneficial arrangement.

The second suit hopes to become a class-action vehicle for agents who feel they were improperly fired. It raises questions about whether grand jury materials, which are protected by secrecy rules limiting how they can be shared even with Congress, were wrongly disclosed.

Both suits allege the agents were terminated based solely on their assignment to Smith's team, work that one suit argues the FBI now views as "somehow hostile partisan acts." The litigation is likely to prompt further examination of the relationship between congressional oversight and federal personnel decisions.