The Air Marshals Keeping Watch On Eric Swalwell
The Atlantic · LC · trust 39/100
The FBI made a highly irregular request to monitor one of Trump’s most visible critics.
Illustration by The Atlantic* September 2, 2026, 7 AM ET Share Save Listen − 1.0 x + Seek 0:00 10:10 O n August 8 , former Representative Eric Swalwell boarded a United Airlines flight from Frankfurt, Germany, to Washington, D.C. He didn’t know it, but federal agents were watching him throughout the nine-hour trip.
The FBI had asked the Federal Air Marshal Service to covertly monitor Swalwell on board and to watch him use his electronic devices, to see whether its officers could visually ascertain his passcodes, according to records I obtained that have not previously been reported on. Air marshals are trained to blend in with other passengers and quietly keep tabs on their subjects, who are usually suspected terrorists or potential hijackers, not politicians.
But Swalwell is an enemy of sorts to the Trump administration. For years, the Democrat has been one of Donald Trump’s most visible political antagonists, having served as a manager in the president’s second impeachment trial. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has called Swalwell a “scumbag” on national television. And FBI Director Kash Patel, the leader of the agency that wanted Swalwell monitored, described him as one of the “corrupt actors of the first order” in his 2023 book, Government Gangsters .
The directive for air-marshal surveillance said that Swalwell was the “focus” of an FBI investigation, but it didn’t provide additional details. Law enforcement has good reason to investigate the 45-year-old. This past spring, a former staff member accused Swalwell of twice raping her while she was intoxicated. A woman in California accused Swalwell of drugging and raping her after he’d promised to assist with her career. Three more women have accused Swalwell of making unwanted advances and sending them lewd text messages, including nude pictures of himself. Swalwell has denied the allegations, but authorities in Los Angeles and Manhattan have opened a criminal investigation. In April, as the number of accusers mounted, Swalwell suspended his campaign for governor of California and resigned from his seat in Congress.
A week after the flight from Germany, Swalwell got off another plane at San Francisco International Airport. FBI agents were waiting for him with a search warrant. They seized his mobile phone and personal computer. (It’s not clear whether, by that point, the FBI knew the passcodes to unlock those devices.) The next day, agents searched Swalwell’s home in Washington, D.C. Documents filed in federal court in California suggest that the bureau is investigating Swalwell in connection with the sexual-assault cases in Los Angeles and New York.
Despite the seriousness of the accusations against Swalwell, many aspects of the FBI’s request to the Federal Air Marshal Service were unusual, current and former officials told me. For one thing, the FBI does not usually investigate sexual assault. For another, asking air marshals to obtain a subject’s electronic passcodes is considered out of the ordinary even for traditional subjects of surveillance, one former official said. The agency presumes that requests for assistance from the FBI, which are not unusual, are relevant to a legitimate investigation. But the bureau’s behavior here undermines that confidence, the former official added.
The request to monitor Swalwell was classified as “Special Mission Coverage,” a term for ad hoc requests from law-enforcement or intelligence agencies that don’t involve people on security watch lists. The FBI’s decision to ask air marshals for help also puzzled some former law-enforcement officials I spoke with, who asked why the FBI hadn’t put its own agents on the plane to conduct surveillance, which would have been a routine matter.
Given the public evidence and the history of the Trump administration’s efforts to investigate or discredit Swalwell, current and former officials and security experts told me that they have trouble imagining that the federal government would have gone to such lengths if the accused were not one of the administration’s least favorite people. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they didn’t want to provoke reprisals.
Sara Azari, Swalwell’s lawyer, told me in a statement that Swalwell has been in contact with the Department of Justice throughout the assault investigation. “Not once were we asked for Mr. Swalwell’s phones or devices. Had the DOJ asked, we would have complied, as we have with every other request,” she said. Azari called the air-marshal surveillance an “extraordinary escalation” against her client, who has not been charged with a crime.
The FBI declined to comment. The Transportation Security Administration, which runs the air-marshals service, didn’t respond to emails and phone calls requesting comment.
T he midair surveillance of the former lawmaker is not the only unusual step the federal government has taken in this case. The warrant used to seize Swalwell’s electronic devices cited a civil-rights statute that historically has been applied to police officers who abuse their authority while acting “under color of law.” It traces its origins to the 19th century and was used in the 1960s to charge local police in Mississippi who conspired with Klansmen to murder civil-rights workers. Decades later, two of the police officers who’d beaten Rodney King were convicted under the law. And it was used to bring federal charges against Derek Chauvin, the officer convicted in Minnesota of killing George Floyd.
The FBI hasn’t publicly articulated its rationale for applying the law to Swalwell. But one theory, according to legal experts I spoke with, may be that he used the power of his office to intimidate his alleged victims into silence. Prosecutors might believe that there’s evidence of coercion or threats in Swalwell’s electronic communications.
But it’s not clear that the law would apply to a…
Read the original at The Atlantic →
Open in TruthVane →