It is important to clarify: the FBI has not declared zoophilia acceptable and does not guarantee employment to candidates with such a past. The issue is about changing the category of *automatic disqualifier*: previously, certain facts automatically halted the consideration of a candidate, but now in some cases a person may undergo further scrutiny. CBS News reported in detail about the new rules. According to the channel, on June 16, an internal directive was sent to FBI employees involved in candidate vetting, providing for a more individualized approach. The document itself has not been fully published. In particular, theft from an employer is no longer an unconditional barrier if more than three years have passed since the incident. Payment for sexual services may not lead to an automatic rejection if there were fewer than three such episodes, they occurred more than ten years ago, and the person was not in a *public trust* position at that time. In cases of zoophilia or animal cruelty, the key condition, according to the published description of the directive, is age: incidents that occurred before the age of 18 no longer mean automatic cessation of application consideration. At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on September 15, Patel explained the change was primarily motivated by a desire not to close the door to federal service for individuals who themselves became victims of sexual violence or human trafficking. He stated that he was presented with cases of potential candidates who were coerced into sexual acts with animals as minors. However, this is where one of the main questions arose. From the available description of the rules, it follows that the exception is formulated through the candidate's age at the time of the incident, while Patel spoke about cases of coercion. Since the full text of the internal directive has not been published, it is currently impossible to determine whether it includes a separate requirement to prove the fact of coercion. Questions arose from senators of both parties. Republican John Kennedy asked Patel why the FBI even needed to reconsider such an unusual restriction. The director replied that he initially viewed the proposal skeptically but changed his mind after learning about specific cases. Meanwhile, the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee demanded the full text of the June directive, documents regarding the preparation of the changes, and statistics on candidates who avoided automatic rejection due to the new rules. Senators also want to find out how many of them subsequently received job offers and whether the FBI assessed potential security risks. Thus, this is not about the FBI "allowing zoophiles to be hired," but rather about easing the mechanism for the initial screening of candidates. However, the unusual nature of the criteria and the discrepancy between the known description of the directive and Patel's explanation made the personnel reform a subject of inquiry in the Senate.
