The FBI’s success in apprehending Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin came one day after Director Kash Patel initially misreported that a suspect was in custody, a move that sparked consternation and criticism as the nation reeled over Kirk’s violent death.

Patel’s misstep during the fast-moving investigation was overshadowed Friday by the breakthrough news that a 22-year-old Utah man had been detained and will face charges for the deadly shooting. But the flaws during the whirlwind 33-hour manhunt did not go unnoticed.

Patel on Thursday announced — then quickly retracted — that authorities had detained the person responsible for killing Kirk.

Fox News’ Laura Ingraham responded ‘unreal’ to Patel’s revelation that the gunman was still at large. Conservative activist Chris Rufo said Friday he was ‘grateful’ authorities arrested a suspect but that it was ‘time for Republicans to reassess’ whether Patel was fit for the job.

‘He performed terribly in the last few days,’ Rufo wrote on social media Friday, adding that he has been talking with conservative leaders who are questioning the FBI’s leadership structure, which includes Patel, Deputy Director Dan Bongino, and, as of next week, Andrew Bailey, who is taking on the unprecedented role of FBI co-deputy director.

The backlash began after Patel said Thursday that ‘the subject for the horrific shooting today that took the life of Charlie Kirk is now in custody,’ before saying less than two hours later that he had the wrong person.

‘The subject in custody has been released after an interrogation by law enforcement,’ Patel said, adding the investigation was ongoing.

At the same time that Patel said the killer had been caught, Utah law enforcement officials were giving a news conference saying the gunman was at large, leading social media users to convey confusion over the mixed messages.

The blip during the manhunt for the person responsible for Kirk’s killing also put a spotlight on Patel’s and Bongino’s apparent fixation on social media, a point that a lawsuit against Patel and the Department of Justice laid out in thorough detail days prior.

The lawsuit was brought by three top FBI officials who alleged their constitutional rights were violated when they were fired without explanation. One of the fired officials said Patel and Bongino lamented the ‘political capital’ they had to spend to keep the official on the job, a reference to pressure Patel and Bongino were getting on social media about the official. Patel’s and Bongino’s actions were often dictated by social media comments, the lawsuit said.

Also fueling the fire was a delayed news conference on Thursday that offered little new detail as the investigation was underway. Patel appeared at the news conference but did not speak. Upon announcing the suspect’s arrest Friday morning, the FBI director gave remarks of gratitude to the agency, local law enforcement, the media and public for contributing to the arrest. Patel made clear that he had been directing the FBI behind the scenes during the past couple days.

‘Warroom’ podcast host Steve Bannon, a former Trump adviser, said on his show that he didn’t ‘know why Kash Patel flew out there, thousands of miles’ merely to thank people. Bannon suggested he wanted more details about the suspect and any possible accomplices.

At this stage, the Trump administration has shown no outward signs of wavering on Patel. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and the FBI for comment.

The White House did not respond. One source familiar said Patel’s social media posting during the Kirk case could have been handled better but that his initial erroneous message and the surrounding criticism of it came during the ‘fog of war,’ as the investigation was rapidly evolving and emotions were high. The source said the focus should be on the success of the FBI’s operation and the ‘good police work’ involved.

A spokeswoman for Patel pointed to a statement she posted online highlighting that the FBI’s mission to identify Kirk’s assassin was a success and that Patel was intentional every step of the way.

‘Over these last few days, what has mattered isn’t ignorant criticism or petty assumptions — it’s been the pursuit of justice. Justice that was promised, justice that has now been delivered,’ spokeswoman Erica Knight said.

One retired FBI agent who worked at the bureau for two decades said Patel’s premature post seemed ‘reckless’ and ‘too quick to the draw,’ but the retired agent also said he viewed it as a problem that went beyond Patel.

‘It’s becoming a popularity contest,’ the retired agent told Fox News Digital. ‘It’s not necessarily something that’s new either, because J. Edgar Hoover was big about leveraging the press to make the FBI look good. I mean, he was notorious for that. That tradition in the bureau has continued, but now it’s sort of like that on steroids.’

The horror that unfolded at Utah Valley University is still hard to process. A few minutes into a joyous meeting before thousands of people, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was gunned down in cold blood. 

As they tried to make sense of this senseless murder, the broadcast networks roughly suggested that Kirk was shot because he was ‘polarizing.’ ABC correspondent Kyra Phillips explained that Kirk was ‘known for his outspoken views on politics, culture, religion, often taking his messages to colleges and universities, sparking sometimes pretty heated debates on campus.’ 

Reporter Aaron Katersky added, ‘there were people on both sides debating whether he should even be allowed to bring his message, often loyal to the agenda of President Trump, to campus.’ White House reporter Mary Bruce doubled down: ‘It’s no secret that Kirk has said a number of controversial things over the years, in particular about DEI, Jews, women, LGBTQ community, people of color.’ 

As Kirk was bleeding out, ABC News was suggesting this was how ‘pretty heated debates’ ended on campus, and that maybe it wouldn’t have happened if Kirk’s ‘controversial’ appearance hadn’t been ‘allowed.’ 

Leftists surely found Kirk’s conservative arguments ‘polarizing’ ‘divisive,’ and ‘controversial.’ But they seem to lack any introspection inside the liberal bubbles of their ‘news’ networks. Spreading their leftist arguments on DEI or LGBTQ or abortion or Trump — often implying that dissent is unacceptably hateful — somehow never polarizes people and is somehow the opposite of controversy. How can their sweet reason be ‘controversial?’ 

By the time the Wednesday evening newscasts came on, there was an appropriate tone of horror at the shooting. But on Thursday, ‘CBS Mornings’ co-host Nate Burleson told former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy that Kirk’s speech was ‘offensive to specific communities’ and asked if Republicans needed to watch their mouths. ‘Speaking of this tragedy, is this a moment for your party to reflect on political violence? Is it a moment for us to think about the responsibility of our political leaders and their voices and what it does to the masses as they get lost in misinformation or disinformation that turns into and spills into political violence?’ 

McCarthy tried to stay on a unifying message, but Burleson’s question was ‘offensive to specific communities,’ in this case the Trump-voting half of America. Everyone who agreed with Kirk on many issues felt like this could have been the violent fate of any conservative speaker out in public, especially on ‘progressive’ campuses. 

Kirk’s alleged assassin was not a Republican. CBS didn’t wonder if the shooter had been influenced by wild leftist rhetoric from any kind of media or political figure. The rhetoric of the Left is somehow always above scrutiny. 

The morning after the murder, NPR turned to Kyle Spencer, a leftist author of a 2022 book about ‘The Untold Story About America’s Ultraconservative Youth Movement And Its Plot For Power.’ She claimed ‘Charlie really positioned himself as somebody who was supporting Whiteness, White people, White culture and the White culture of this country against what he saw as efforts that were efforts to create equity in the country and to support the disenfranchised.’ 

‘Public’ broadcasting is deeply suffused with the ‘DEI ethic’ that they must ‘center the marginalized,’ and so anyone who opposes the Black left should be marginalized as a far-right racist fringe. But they loved Black Lives Matter and their racial ‘reckoning’ in 2020. 

As news bubbled up that there were political markings on the shooter’s ammunition, on Thursday’s ‘World News Tonight’ on ABC, they took the reports of ‘anti-fascist’ and pro-transgender messaging and dumbed them down. Matt Gutman could only say law-enforcement sources found ‘a high-powered rifle wrapped in a towel, and three unspent cartridges inscribed with words and symbols. Tonight, authorities [are] working on what the markings might mean.’ 

Leftists surely found Kirk’s conservative arguments ‘polarizing’ ‘divisive,’ and ‘controversial.’ But they seem to lack any introspection inside the liberal bubbles of their ‘news’ networks. 

On Friday, authorities revealed one shell casing read: ‘Hey fascist! Catch!’ Another said ‘O bella ciao, bella ciao,’ which refers to a leftist song celebrating the end of Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, but the left still uses it against the current conservative Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. 

The news networks have spent the last 10 years wildly using terms like ‘fascist’ and ‘authoritarian’ to describe not just President Donald Trump, but Republicans and conservatives in general. By contrast, the radical left ‘Antifa’ movement has largely escaped any critical scrutiny and in recent years, the media have pretended that this is some sort of kooky invention of conspiracy theorists. 

When the network newscasts casually allow Democrats to compare Trump to Adolf Hitler and suggest he and his voters are an ‘existential threat’ to democracy, they are the ones raising national tensions. Not conservatives.

Last-minute closed-door talks between Senate Republicans and Democrats failed to prevent a ‘nuclear option’ in the upper chamber, as frustrations on both sides killed a deal to move ahead with President Donald Trump’s nominees.  

Lawmakers were inching closer to a deal that would have allowed sub-Cabinet-level nominees to be voted on in bunches, but neither side could reach a final agreement.

Senate Republicans argued that a majority of their counterparts agreed with the new proposal, but that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was still standing in the way.

‘I think the majority of Democrats are on board with it,’ Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital. ‘And Schumer is blocking it from actually having consent to come to the floor.’

The failed deal was a modified version of a proposal first unveiled by Senate Democrats in 2023, and would have allowed 15 nominees to be batched together en bloc and voted on while still requiring two hours of debate for the group.

But when Lankford brought the proposal to the floor for consideration, Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, blocked it.

Schatz argued that Senate Republicans were trying to rush through the negotiating process ahead of their plan to leave Washington for the weekend.

‘What they’re asking for is unanimity, and we don’t have it,’ he said. ‘And so, if you’re interested in enacting this on a bipartisan basis, the process for doing that — It is available to you. But again, it’s more a matter of running out of patience than running out of time.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., fired back ‘how much time is enough?’

‘Give me a break,’ he said. ‘Two years. Not long enough. How about eight months? Eight months of this.’

With the prospects of bipartisan deal to move nominees through Democrats’ blockade, Senate Republicans are expected to continue down the path of the ‘nuclear option.’

That means that their initial proposal, which would allow for an unlimited number of sub-cabinet level nominees to be voted on en bloc with 30 hours of debate tacked on, is expected to pass with a simple majority, and effectively change the confirmation process in the Senate.

‘We are achingly close to doing this like adults,’ Schatz said.

The fifth day of trial is slated to kick off in Fort Pierce, Florida on Friday for the case of Ryan Routh, who faces charges for attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump at his West Palm Beach golf club in September 2024.

On Thursday, then-Secret Service Special Agent Robert Fercano testified on behalf of the government that Routh pointed a rifle at his face while hiding out in shrubbery at the golf course. 

Fercano, currently assigned to Homeland Security Investigations, said he was scanning the sixth hole while Trump was playing the fifth when he ‘noticed several abnormalities on the fence line.’ 

‘There appeared to be a face, a barrel of a weapon and what I perceived to be plates, like Humvee plates like I saw in the Marine Corps,’ Fercano told Assistant U.S. Attorney Maria Medetis Long on Thursday. 

Fercano said that he initially thought he may have spotted a homeless person, but then noticed the barrel followed him and that the weapon was ‘pointed directly at my face.’ 

‘This appeared to be a textbook ambush scenario,’ Fercano said. 

Routh also questioned Fercano – and used his time to ask a series of questions regarding sniper tactics. 

‘As far as being a sniper, what would be the best stance to shoot people? Standing, crouching, laying down?’ Routh asked. 

‘I wasn’t a sniper … it depends,’ Fercano said. 

Others who testified Thursday included Tommy McGee, a government witness and a civilian who heard gunshots break out the day of the alleged assassination attempt and took a photo of Routh and his car. 

‘He looked frantic,’ McGee said Thursday. ‘He ran right in front of me. We looked at each other… it looked like he was trying to get away.’

When Justice Department prosecutor John Shipley asked McGee if Routh was the same man he saw the day of the alleged assassination attempt, McGee said yes. 

According to prosecutors, Routh laid out the groundwork to kill Trump for weeks, and hid out in shrubbery on Sept. 15, 2024, when a Secret Service agent, Fercano, identified him pointing a rifle at Trump while the then-presidential candidate played golf. Although Routh pointed his rifle at the agent, he then abandoned his weapon and the scene after Fercano opened fire.

Routh was later apprehended by the Martin County, Florida, Sheriff’s Office on the I-95 interstate in a black Nissan Xterra. 

According to the Justice Department, he is charged with attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate; possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence; assaulting a federal officer; felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition; and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Routh also faces state charges related to terrorism and attempted murder. 

Routh, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges, was previously convicted of felonies in North Carolina in 2002 and 2010. 

Routh, 59, is representing himself in his trial – a process known as ‘pro se.’ Routh sent a letter to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in June notifying her of his decision to represent himself. 

‘I will be representing myself moving forward; it was ridiculous from the outset to consider a random stranger that knows nothing of who I am to speak for me,’ Routh said in the letter. ‘That was foolish and ignorant, and I am sorry-a childlike mistake.’ 

Cannon approved the move in July, although she said that she believes it’s not a good idea for Routh to represent himself in this case. Routh has said he went to college for two years after receiving a GED certificate and told Cannon he was prepared to navigate any challenges that could come from representing himself. 

Despite Routh’s decision to act singularly, court-appointed attorneys are still on call to provide standby counsel. 

Fox News’ Jamie Joseph, Jake Gibson, Olivianna Calmes, Heather Lacey and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

After an attempt to secure a bipartisan deal failed, Senate Republicans went nuclear for the fourth time in the Senate’s history Thursday to speed up confirmation of President Donald Trump’s nominees.

Republicans had threatened turning to the ‘nuclear option,’ which would allow for a rule change with a simple majority vote, to blast through the blockade from Senate Democrats and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. 

Lawmakers were frustrated that, through the first eight months of Trump’s presidency, not a single nominee had moved through fast-track unanimous consent or voice votes.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., argued it shouldn’t have come as a surprise to Democrats what Republicans intended to do. 

‘I’ve been saying all week, ‘We’re going to vote on this on Thursday, one way or the other,” Thune said. 

‘We’re going to change this process in a way that gets us back to what every president prior has had when it comes to the way that these nominees are treated here in the United States Senate — by both sides, Republicans and Democrats; both presidents, Republicans and Democrats.’ 

The GOP’s rule change, which was born from a revived Democratic proposal from 2023, will now allow lawmakers to vote on Trump’s nominees in batches.

Senate Republicans’ rule change, which has been pitched as beneficial to the current and future administrations, would only apply to nominees subject to the Senate’s requirement for two hours of debate, which includes sub-Cabinet-level positions and executive branch picks.

Judicial nominees, like district court judges and district attorneys, don’t fall under the rule change. Lawmakers are expected to plow through dozens of nominees early next week under the new rules with the intent of clearing the backlog of Trump’s picks, which grew to more than 140 and counting. 

With the change in place, it will only take a simple majority vote to confirm the picks. Still, the decision to do bloc packages will require 30 hours of debate before a final confirmation vote. 

Schumer panned the move and contended Republicans had turned the Senate into ‘a conveyor belt for unqualified Trump nominees.’

‘This is a sad, regrettable day for the Senate, and I believe it won’t take very long for Republicans to wish they had not pushed the chamber further down this awful road,’ he said. 

However, before resorting to the nuclear option, lawmakers were close to a bipartisan deal that would have allowed for 15 nominees to be voted on in groups with two hours of debate.

Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, blocked the new proposal on the floor and argued that Senate Republicans were trying to rush through the negotiating process ahead of their plan to leave Washington for the weekend.

‘What they’re asking for is unanimity, and we don’t have it,’ he said. ‘And, so, if you’re interested in enacting this on a bipartisan basis, the process for doing that — it is available to you. But, again, it’s more a matter of running out of patience than running out of time.’

A frustrated Thune fired back, ‘How much time is enough?

‘Give me a break,’ he said. ‘Two years. Not long enough. How about eight months? Eight months of this.’

The nuclear process began earlier this week when Thune teed up 48 nominees, all of which moved through committee on a bipartisan basis, for confirmation on the floor.

‘It’s time to move,’ Thune said. ‘Time to quit stalling. Time to vote. It’s time to fix this place. And the ideal way to fix it would be in a bipartisan way.’

Both parties have turned to the nuclear option a handful of times since 2010. In 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., used the nuclear option to allow for all executive branch nominees to be confirmed by simple majority.

Four years later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., went nuclear to allow for Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed by a simple majority. In 2019, McConnell reduced the debate time to two hours for civilian nominees.