For far too long, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has acted more like some exclusive snob club than a real law enforcement agency. It was stuffed with well-heeled lawyers and Ivy League types who seemed more interested in hobnobbing or cooking up complicated intelligence drama than in cracking down on real street crime. Now, word is that the administration’s top men at the bureau want to lower recruitment barriers, compress training, and open the doors to a bigger pool of robust talent.

That means no more absolute college-degree requirement and only eight weeks of training instead of an 18-week ordeal. Purists holler that this destroys the F.B.I.’s claim to exclusivity—and guess what? Good. This isn’t about coddling an academic elite. This is about fighting criminals with hands-on skill. We’re talking about letting in folks with backgrounds in other enforcement agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the ATF. People who know how to bust drug dealers or quell major unrest, not just track foreign meddling for endless political gains.

Look, the bureau lost thousands of employees over the last couple of years. Many were cut or took early retirement. Others got weeded out because they felt they couldn’t toe the line in a new era. The squeaky wheels in the old guard complained about “morale,” but what they call “low morale” might just be a healthy purge of entrenched bureaucrats who forgot that the F.B.I. was meant to serve the people, not serve as some quasi-political unit. The new leadership wants to fill the ranks with fresh blood—people who won’t whine about dog-eat-dog politics but will do the real job of policing.

Now, the doomsayers are out in force. They claim that “national security” might be compromised if the bureau scales back specialized training. You’d think F.B.I. recruits need years in some ivory tower to figure out how to investigate criminals or terrorists. But plenty of cops and federal agents have tackled real threats on American soil without fancy degrees. Street-smart recruits from local police forces could excel as special agents, bringing practical knowledge instead of just mainly theoretical expertise.

One might wonder if the bigger reason for the pushback is about losing the bureau’s sense of self-importance. This is a place that used to brag about how selective it was, always insisting on a degree plus a ton of specialized qualifications. Perhaps that was necessary once. But if the new leadership wants to shift the focus to combating everyday crime head-on—with less beltway red tape and fewer “think tank” types—why not?

So, the F.B.I. is going to emphasize fighting street crime, ironically, the same way the White House has demanded more resources on the streets of Washington. It’s all consistent with an administration that’s no longer star-struck by the hallowed halls at Quantico. We have a president who told them: If you can’t root out crime in your own city, you can’t claim moral superiority over local cops.

Indignant voices say this is a demeaning transformation, calling it a cheapening of an elite institution. But for many hardworking citizens, it looks like the F.B.I. might finally focus on criminals right here at home, instead of meddling in indefinite “national security investigations” that conveniently never end. Shouldn’t that be the bureau’s actual job: protecting law-abiding Americans from violent offenders, dangerous gangs, or traitors, rather than chasing DC’s political illusions?

For me, it’s about time the F.B.I. stops acting like a pompous fortress and becomes an agency that everyday patriots can relate to. Let them recruit from the best local forces. Let them run a shorter training if it means more effective policing. Let them unify behind a mission that puts law and order first. If that ruffles the feathers of the bureaucrats, well, I say that’s just another sign we’re finally on the right track.

Topics: [“F.B.I. reforms”, “recruiting standards”, “law enforcement focus”, “bureau leadership”, “crime priorities”]