this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2026
192 points (99.0% liked)

politics

30960 readers
2375 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The FBI is dropping a categorical hiring ban on applicants who have had sexual encounters with prostitutes and will instead consider in a more holistic manner at least some candidates who have engaged in the practice in the past, according to people familiar with the matter.

The move away from an automatic disqualification falls along a continuum of evolving recruitment standards within federal law enforcement and at the buttoned-up bureau, which several years ago relaxed its approach to candidates’ past marijuana use and has drawn more recent concern among some current and former agents about a perceived loosening of recruitment requirements as it seeks to replenish its ranks.

The bureau still intends to dismiss applicants who are revealed during the vetting process to have engaged in prostitution within the last 10 years, three or more times overall or while in a position of trust such as public safety, according to guidance issued this past spring and described by a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to discuss internal decision-making and spoke on condition of anonymity. For others, it will allow for consideration of the context of the conduct rather than treat it as grounds for an automatic rejection from the FBI’s hiring process.

The practical impact is not immediately clear since many who have engaged in prostitution may still be either immediately disqualified or weeded out upon further scrutiny from FBI polygraphers and security officials.

The FBI said the change was meant to account for the fact that some otherwise suitable candidates, including service members, may have engaged in the practice in places where it is legal and to accommodate applicants who themselves may have been victims of sexual abuse.

“It is false to suggest criminal behavior like this is no longer disqualifying at the FBI. Any applicant who has engaged in criminal sexual acts like those referenced would of course not be eligible for employment, and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise,” the FBI said in a statement that described the background check process as “wide-ranging and extensive.”

“The FBI has and always will maintain some of the highest suitability standards for its applicants and employees in the US Government,” the statement added.

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Yew@lemmy.world 103 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can't help but feel this was changed to allow them to hire a specific person.

[–] KnitWit@lemmy.world 70 points 1 day ago

Yeah, the director.

[–] Godort@lemmy.ca 35 points 1 day ago

This is a change for the better, and it would be better still to not have arbitrary limits in place. However, considering who is in control of the FBI right now, I can't help but feel that this is a positive change made for all the wrong reasons.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

and to accommodate applicants who themselves may have been victims of sexual abuse.

I think we all know this rule won't be used to give fair consideration to former prostitutes, only [unfair consideration to] johns.

[Edited for clarity]

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

...there are THAT MANY applicants with prostitution history that they need to exempt it like this? As in, they were perfect candidates in every other way but had this history?

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It is odd. I wonder if we can foia the detail.

I sure hope so because I just saw another report that said it also exempts bestiality and animal cruelty as a minor and these are clearly seeking fucking serial killers

[–] Pomal@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 day ago

They have to lower their standards so those halls can be filled with Oathkeepers once more.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago

Melania joining the FBI?

[–] obvs@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Banning prostitution helps only human traffickers.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago

So... Kash is just really going all in on the hookers and blow, huh?

Wants to be able to take the new recruits to some of parties?

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 7 points 1 day ago

The FBI has a strong mormon streak, stemming from whatshisface, j edgar hoover. He liked how they didn't drink or do drugs, or apparently tell others about how he was totally gay and in effect married to one of his subordinates.

J edgar hoover is famous for collecting a trove of blackmail on politicians and notables in the country by the way. No reason I mention that, totally unrelated to this administration.

[–] paddythegeek@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If we're talking Latin American prostitutes then I think they just did.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago

Annie's twelve years old

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Weed still prevents you, though? Or is that old hat as well?

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago

Can't get clearance if you admit to smoking weed. Even in rec states.

Waiting for my employer to ask me why my renewal didn't go through...

According to this "Employment Eligibility" PDF, domestic violence is only disqualifying if the candidate has actually been convicted.

But we're not talking about convicted solicitation of prostitutes here, are we?

So the FBI is a land of contrasts.

[–] savvie@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago

GOP: “We are all terrorists/ prostitutes!”

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If you just did it to make summer money it's okay

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

That’s really hilariously sad

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago

Well that'd good. That was a fucked up policy

[–] Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

"We want to hire more people from the island"

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I've seen some folks pretend this is a good thing because no one should be descriminated for doing or enjoying sex work.

Except, there's a colossal human trafficking and rape problem with prostitution, and this pro-pedophilia, pro-human trafficking, pro-rape FBI really doesn't need to be hiring more assholes who engage in these things.

This isn't about consensual sex work, this is about flooding law enforcement with those who personally partake in sex trafficking and rape, so the sex trafficking and raping elites can better get away with it.