Day: October 22, 2025

The  #FBI will not pay its  #informants!  #America cannot function and survive without its informants! America a a snitching society! – Google Search  google.com/search?q=The+FBI+…
notus.org/congress/fbi-doj-i…

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 22, 2025

share.google/aimode/FSDOQuKJ…
The  #FBI will not pay its  #informants! America cannot function and survive without its informants! America a a snitching society!
This was a temporary effect of the congressional budget standoff, not a permanent change in policy. The FBI has a formal process for compensating its informants, and their use is considered an essential, though controversial, component of law enforcement in the U.S..
Recent news reports from October 2025 indicated that the FBI could not pay its informants because of a government shutdown.

The FBI does pay its informants!
The claim that the FBI does not pay its informants is inaccurate. Informants—or confidential human sources—are not employees of the FBI, but they can be compensated for information and expenses.
Payment guidelines: Payments are made according to a strict, tiered structure. The amount is based on the value of the information provided and factors like the significance of the case.
Authorization levels: A special agent-in-charge can authorize payments of up to $100,000 per informant per fiscal year. Higher amounts require approval from successively higher levels of the FBI.
Expense reimbursement: Informants may also receive reimbursement for expenses such as travel, housing, and other costs associated with their assistance.
Asset forfeiture: In some cases, an informant can receive a share of the value of property forfeited as a result of their information, up to 25% of the net value.
The importance and controversy of using informants
The U.S. law enforcement system relies heavily on informants, a practice the courts have upheld as lawful and often essential for investigations.
The importance of informants
Access to criminal networks: Informants, who are often embedded in criminal communities, provide crucial “insider” knowledge that is otherwise difficult for agents to obtain.
Effectiveness in complex cases: Informants are especially valuable in complex criminal cases, such as those involving drug trafficking, organized crime, and counterterrorism.
Officer safety: Using informants can reduce the need for agents to put themselves in dangerous undercover situations.
Controversy over informants
Reliability: An informant’s motives can be complicated, ranging from financial gain to revenge or a desire for leniency in their own cases. This can compromise their reliability and introduce bias.
Ethical and legal issues: The use of informants can involve deception and raises ethical and legal questions, especially concerning the reliability of the information they provide.
Historical abuse: The FBI has a history of misusing informants, most notably during its COINTELPRO operations from 1956 to 1971, which targeted domestic political groups. These actions were later condemned by Congress for violating constitutional rights.
Risks to informants: Informants face significant risks of retaliation from criminal associates and are often afforded minimal protection by law enforcement, particularly after they are no longer useful.
The concept of a “snitching society”
The idea that the U.S. is a “snitching society” is a broad characterization that speaks to the common use of informants, as well as the historical and cultural context surrounding them.
Prevalence in law enforcement: The use of informants is a widespread practice across various law enforcement agencies, not just the FBI.
Varying motivations: The term “snitch” or “informant” can apply to a wide range of people, from criminals seeking a plea deal to concerned citizens who provide tips with no expectation of reward.
Cultural dimension: While some may view the reliance on informants negatively as a form of social corrosion, law enforcement sees it as a necessary tool for solving crimes that affect communities. The practice highlights the difficult balance between public safety and the ethical dilemmas inherent in relying on compromised or vulnerable individuals for information.

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 22, 2025

share.google/aimode/Xp6s6WUP…
The  #FBI  #Informants:  #Psychology, mentality, motivations, patterns, practices, notable cases, effect on society and mental health

FBI informants have complex and varied motivations, behaviors, and psychological profiles. Their work is a critical and controversial tool for law enforcement, with significant implications for society and for the informants’ own mental health.
Psychology and mentality
Informants, especially those with criminal histories, often have psychopathic traits, which can be both an asset and a liability for the FBI.
Egocentricity: A psychopathic informant’s self-centered nature can lead them to freely share information about their associates to gain favor or attention.
Lack of guilt: This trait allows them to speak about the criminal activities of others without remorse. It also makes it harder for handlers to detect when they are lying, as they don’t display the usual physical signs of deception.
Vulnerability: Personal issues such as financial crisis, dissatisfaction, feelings of being unrewarded, or revenge can make individuals susceptible to recruitment. The pressure of living a double life can also create significant psychological strain.
Mental health: Studies show that informants with existing mental health conditions, like bipolar disorder or mood disorders, can be more susceptible to involvement in informant activity. However, these conditions can also compromise the informant’s judgment and reliability.
Motivations
Informants’ reasons for cooperating with the FBI can be a combination of self-interest, self-preservation, and conscience.
Financial reward: Many informants are motivated by money.
Working off charges: This is one of the most common motivations, especially for criminal informants, who seek a reduced sentence or a dismissal of their own charges.
Revenge or eliminating competition: An informant may cooperate to get back at someone or to remove a rival in their criminal enterprise.
Self-importance and vanity: Some informants are motivated by a desire for positive reinforcement, a feeling of importance, or the excitement of working with law enforcement.
Civic duty or conscience: Some, though a smaller number, are driven by patriotism, a sense of justice, or a genuine desire to leave their criminal past behind.
Patterns and practices
The use of informants is a legally permissible, but sensitive, practice that is strictly regulated by guidelines from the Department of Justice.
Recruitment: The FBI generally recruits individuals who are already in a position to know criminal information. They do not “place” or insert informants in the same way they would an undercover agent.
Management: Handlers must carefully evaluate and supervise informants due to their questionable motivations and reliability. Regular check-ins are vital, and the handler must manage the informant’s expectations for compensation and results.
Deception and risk: The process often involves an element of deception and intrusion into an individual’s private life. In some cases, informants may be asked to engage in risky, illegal activities, raising ethical and legal questions.
Unreliability: Informants under stress or duress can provide inaccurate or misleading information. Their testimony is one of the leading contributing factors in wrongful convictions.
Notable cases
Several high-profile cases have involved or been impacted by FBI informants.
Whitey Bulger: The notorious Boston mob boss was an FBI informant for decades, a relationship that became infamously corrupt. He exploited his handler, Special Agent John Connolly, to receive information that allowed him to eliminate rivals and evade justice for years.
Mark Whitacre: An executive at Archer Daniels Midland, Whitacre became a key informant in a 1990s price-fixing conspiracy. His story was later dramatized in the movie The Informant!. Whitacre was later revealed to have bipolar disorder and engaged in criminal behavior while acting as an informant.
Gary Thomas Rowe: A member of the Ku Klux Klan, Rowe was an FBI informant implicated in the murder of civil rights activist Viola Liuzzo in 1965. An FBI internal investigation into the incident revealed that Rowe may have been protected by the Bureau.
Joseph Pistone (“Donnie Brasco”): As an FBI special agent, Pistone worked deep undercover in the Bonanno crime family during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Unlike standard informants, he was a trained agent. His work led to over 200 indictments and numerous convictions of Mafia members and demonstrated the value of long-term undercover operations.
Effect on society and mental health
The use of informants has significant and complex consequences for individuals, communities, and the broader justice system.
Damage to communities: The informant system can erode trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. When informants are recruited from marginalized groups, it can further damage police-community relations. In some cases, as with the civil rights movement, informants have exacerbated social and political tensions.
Wrongful convictions: The use of jailhouse informants has been linked to a high number of wrongful convictions. Their incentives to lie in exchange for benefits can lead to false testimony that undermines the integrity of the justice system.
Escalation of crime: The Harvard Law Review and other sources have noted that informant deals often allow high-level criminals to inform on less culpable subordinates. This can enable the “bigger fish” to escape more serious consequences, resulting in a less-just outcome. Informants may also continue to commit crimes while cooperating with the FBI.
Mental and psychological toll: The psychological burden on informants can be immense. For informants who engage in dangerous activity or infiltrate criminal organizations, the stress and risk to their lives and their families can be severe. For those with pre-existing mental health issues, the pressure can exacerbate their condition.

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 22, 2025