Twelve former FBI agents who were photographed FBI agents kneeling during protests in June 2020 have filed a new lawsuit seeking reinstatement and financial damages. The filing, submitted on December 8, 2025, marks the most significant legal action to date tied to the kneeling controversy that emerged from the nationwide demonstrations following George Floyd’s death.
The agents argue they were dismissed unfairly and that their kneeling was not a political act. Instead, they say it was a tactical decision intended to calm a rapidly escalating crowd during a tense moment in Washington, D.C.
The incident and its background
The kneeling photo, taken during the height of the 2020 protests, circulated widely across the country. In the image, armed personnel took a knee as demonstrators demanded accountability and justice. The agents now suing say the action was part of an effort to ease tensions when officers were outnumbered and lacked full protective equipment.
According to the lawsuit, the agents believed kneeling would reduce confrontation and help stabilize the scene. They maintain it was a split-second decision aimed at reducing the risk of violence for both law enforcement and the public.
Why the lawsuit was filed now
The legal action comes after years of internal reviews, disciplinary steps, and personnel changes. The former agents claim their dismissals intensified after leadership changes at the bureau. They state that they were reassigned, suspended, and eventually fired despite internal reports indicating no political intent behind their actions.
The lawsuit alleges these terminations were unjustified and shaped by political pressure rather than clear policy violations. The agents argue that the discipline they received was inconsistent with the findings of internal inquiries that labeled the kneeling as a de-escalation tactic rather than a political expression.
Who is involved in the case
The plaintiffs include a group of twelve former agents who served in Washington during the 2020 protests. They are seeking reinstatement to their original positions, full back pay, restoration of lost benefits, and removal of termination records. The suit also requests damages for career harm, emotional distress, and long-term financial loss.
Those named in the complaint include current federal leadership, as the plaintiffs argue that administrative decisions in recent years played a central role in what they describe as a retaliatory process.
What the agents claim
In the lawsuit, the former agents make several key claims:
- Their kneeling was a tactical method used to ease crowd hostility.
- Internal reviews found no evidence that the gesture was political or inappropriate.
- They were singled out for punishment after leadership changes.
- Their dismissals violated their constitutional rights and federal employment protections.
- Their careers, reputations, and incomes were severely damaged as a result.
The plaintiffs assert that the disciplinary actions taken against them were unprecedented and inconsistent with how similar incidents have been handled within federal law enforcement.
A detailed timeline
To clarify the progression of events, the case outlines the following timeline:
- June 2020: Agents photographed kneeling during the Washington, D.C. protests.
- 2020–2024: Internal reviews conducted; the kneeling determined to be nonpolitical.
- 2025: Reports of personnel reassignments and internal actions escalate.
- Late 2025: Multiple agents are dismissed from their positions.
- December 8, 2025: Twelve former agents file suit seeking reinstatement and compensation.
This sequence forms the foundation of the lawsuit and is central to the plaintiffs’ claim that their discipline intensified years after the original incident, despite earlier assessments suggesting no misconduct.
Implications for federal agencies
The case highlights ongoing debates within federal law enforcement about conduct standards, protest response tactics, and political neutrality. It raises the question of whether tactical decisions made during unpredictable field situations should later be interpreted as political statements.
The lawsuit could also influence future internal disciplinary policies. If a court sides with the agents, it may set a precedent for how agencies evaluate employee actions taken in high-pressure environments.
What the plaintiffs want the court to do
The agents are asking the court for several forms of relief, including:
- Reinstatement to their former supervisory or operational roles.
- Back pay covering all lost income since their terminations.
- Restoration of service credit, retirement contributions, and federal benefits.
- Removal of all disciplinary records related to the kneeling incident.
- Financial damages for reputational harm and career setbacks.
They argue that these remedies are necessary to repair their professional standing and restore stability to their lives after years of conflict with the bureau.
National attention on the case
The kneeling photo remains one of the most recognizable images from the 2020 protests, and the new lawsuit brings its significance back into national focus. Many Americans remember the moment as symbolic, while others viewed it as controversial. The plaintiffs aim to reframe the narrative, positioning their kneeling as a practical, on-scene decision rather than a social or political message.
As the suit moves forward, it is expected to draw significant public interest. Both supporters and critics of the agents’ actions will likely watch the case closely, especially as the court begins reviewing motions and responses from federal leadership.
Looking ahead
The upcoming legal process will determine whether the former agents can return to their positions and whether the bureau’s disciplinary actions will withstand judicial scrutiny. The case could take months or even years to resolve, depending on how the court handles procedural challenges and evidence review.
The outcome may influence future internal decisions within federal law enforcement and could shape how tactical actions taken during public protests are interpreted in the years ahead.
Share your thoughts below and let us know how you feel about the case as it continues to develop.
