Biden’s FBI Exposed: Innocent Americans Targeted Under Watchlist Scandal

Paul Riverbank, 1/6/2026FBI watchlist snares innocent Americans—raising alarms over privacy, political bias, and civil liberties.

Christine Crowder’s life looked unremarkable from the outside. She taught at a Catholic school in Texas, paid her bills, and, in January 2021, made a trip thousands of others made: to Washington, D.C., alongside a sea of citizens. Her purpose? To exercise her right to free speech at President Trump’s rally. That’s it. She neither breached the Capitol nor participated in any violent acts. Yet, a single, shaky tip from an acquaintance branded her as a possible domestic terrorist. The authorities ran facial recognition software; it yielded nothing suspicious. Still, what should have ended there instead kicked off a two-year ordeal.

Crowder found herself under an opaque cloak of government watchfulness. Unfamiliar faces appeared in airports and, at home, cars parked at odd hours. An anonymous bureaucracy seemed to shadow her every step. She landed on national security watch lists. And all of this, it turns out, spiraled from a case of mistaken identity—an unvetted lead about actions she never committed.

The Senate’s records, made public by Sen. Rand Paul—the committee’s chair—leave little room for doubt: this episode isn’t just a bureaucratic hiccup. “A free society cannot tolerate a system in which programs and authorities intended to keep the public safe are instead weaponized against them due to mere suspicion,” Paul observed. He pushed for reforms to rein in what he described as the unfettered reach of “faceless bureaucrats.”

Here’s the stinging reality: Crowder’s story is hardly unique. The government program at the heart of the controversy, called Quiet Skies, swept up more than a few citizens who’d done nothing wrong. Draw back the curtain further, and you see the same net ensnared public figures—Tulsi Gabbard, for instance, now Director of National Intelligence, found herself placed on a terror watch list while still in uniform with the Army Reserve. Her supposed offense? Merely being present in Washington and voicing disagreement with policy.

Even inside law enforcement, these excesses are causing unease. FBI Director Kash Patel put it bluntly: “When a Catholic kindergarten teacher from Texas can be surveilled for more than two years simply for being in Washington, D.C., without entering the Capitol, without committing a crime, we have crossed from legitimate investigation into political overreach.” His call for “accountability, transparency, and an end to investigations that target Americans for their beliefs or proximity rather than evidence” cuts close to the core of American justice.

Ultimately, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has pulled the plug on Quiet Skies. But the Senate’s investigation offers little comfort—the infrastructure for a repeat performance remains intact, ready for use if a future administration so desires.

Meanwhile, the aftershocks go beyond government corridors. Turn on the news, and you’ll notice trust in the media—once taken for granted—slipping further each week. Just look at the fuss around CBS’s Margaret Brennan pressing Sen. Tom Cotton in a recent interview. Some viewers found her questioning sharp, perhaps too sharp. Others focused on body language—stiff, curt, eyes narrowed—fueling claims of bias on social media. “Hey @bariweiss -- have a chat with Margaret Brennan because her body language is deeply disrespectful and not befitting of a journalist,” one audience member wrote in exasperation. The wider sense, especially among conservatives, is that tough questioning isn’t distributed evenly—that some guests are grilled while others are handled far more gently.

Put the threads together and you see the contours of a trust deficit, both in media and government. The systems set up to shield the public seem, lately, to turn inward. How many more could find themselves hemmed in—suspected, watched, and nearly prosecuted—for nothing more than wrong-place, wrong-time circumstances, or holding unpopular opinions?

This isn’t a question for politicians alone, nor a problem solved by shelving one surveillance program. It’s a crossroads moment. Can America’s leaders—regardless of party—agree that the basic liberties of speech, privacy, and due process aren’t up for negotiation, even when it’s inconvenient? If they fail, the ghosts of programs like Quiet Skies will linger, maybe under new names but with the same old risks.

At the end of the day, our democracy’s strength rests not just on the intentions of its laws but on how those in power wield them. If we don’t keep a sharp eye—and demand answers when lines are crossed—we might wake up to find that the rights we thought were secure have slipped quietly away.

Sometimes the stories that land on my desk feel almost too surreal for a nation that prizes individual rights. Last week, a Senate committee laid bare just how fragile those rights can become—especially when powerful security programs are left unchecked. The account that’s surfaced isn’t just disturbing; it’s a warning for anyone who thinks their name could never end up on the wrong list.Christine Crowder’s life looked unremarkable from the outside. She taught at a Catholic school in Texas, paid her bills, and, in January 2021, made a trip thousands of others made: to Washington, D.C., alongside a sea of citizens. Her purpose? To exercise her right to free speech at President Trump’s rally. That’s it. She neither breached the Capitol nor participated in any violent acts. Yet, a single, shaky tip from an acquaintance branded her as a possible domestic terrorist. The authorities ran facial recognition software; it yielded nothing suspicious. Still, what should have ended there instead kicked off a two-year ordeal.Crowder found herself under an opaque cloak of government watchfulness. Unfamiliar faces appeared in airports and, at home, cars parked at odd hours. An anonymous bureaucracy seemed to shadow her every step. She landed on national security watch lists. And all of this, it turns out, spiraled from a case of mistaken identity—an unvetted lead about actions she never committed.The Senate’s records, made public by Sen. Rand Paul—the committee’s chair—leave little room for doubt: this episode isn’t just a bureaucratic hiccup. “A free society cannot tolerate a system in which programs and authorities intended to keep the public safe are instead weaponized against them due to mere suspicion,” Paul observed. He pushed for reforms to rein in what he described as the unfettered reach of “faceless bureaucrats.”Here’s the stinging reality: Crowder’s story is hardly unique. The government program at the heart of the controversy, called Quiet Skies, swept up more than a few citizens who’d done nothing wrong. Draw back the curtain further, and you see the same net ensnared public figures—Tulsi Gabbard, for instance, now Director of National Intelligence, found herself placed on a terror watch list while still in uniform with the Army Reserve. Her supposed offense? Merely being present in Washington and voicing disagreement with policy.Even inside law enforcement, these excesses are causing unease. FBI Director Kash Patel put it bluntly: “When a Catholic kindergarten teacher from Texas can be surveilled for more than two years simply for being in Washington, D.C., without entering the Capitol, without committing a crime, we have crossed from legitimate investigation into political overreach.” His call for “accountability, transparency, and an end to investigations that target Americans for their beliefs or proximity rather than evidence” cuts close to the core of American justice.Ultimately, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has pulled the plug on Quiet Skies. But the Senate’s investigation offers little comfort—the infrastructure for a repeat performance remains intact, ready for use if a future administration so desires.Meanwhile, the aftershocks go beyond government corridors. Turn on the news, and you’ll notice trust in the media—once taken for granted—slipping further each week. Just look at the fuss around CBS’s Margaret Brennan pressing Sen. Tom Cotton in a recent interview. Some viewers found her questioning sharp, perhaps too sharp. Others focused on body language—stiff, curt, eyes narrowed—fueling claims of bias on social media. “Hey @bariweiss -- have a chat with Margaret Brennan because her body language is deeply disrespectful and not befitting of a journalist,” one audience member wrote in exasperation. The wider sense, especially among conservatives, is that tough questioning isn’t distributed evenly—that some guests are grilled while others are handled far more gently.Put the threads together and you see the contours of a trust deficit, both in media and government. The systems set up to shield the public seem, lately, to turn inward. How many more could find themselves hemmed in—suspected, watched, and nearly prosecuted—for nothing more than wrong-place, wrong-time circumstances, or holding unpopular opinions?This isn’t a question for politicians alone, nor a problem solved by shelving one surveillance program. It’s a crossroads moment. Can America’s leaders—regardless of party—agree that the basic liberties of speech, privacy, and due process aren’t up for negotiation, even when it’s inconvenient? If they fail, the ghosts of programs like Quiet Skies will linger, maybe under new names but with the same old risks.At the end of the day, our democracy’s strength rests not just on the intentions of its laws but on how those in power wield them. If we don’t keep a sharp eye—and demand answers when lines are crossed—we might wake up to find that the rights we thought were secure have slipped quietly away.