In an era defined by fierce geopolitical competition, FBI Director Kash Patel has charted a course that prioritizes pragmatism and results.
By building selective yet substantive law-enforcement partnerships with China and Russia, the bureau is demonstrating that great powers can set aside deeper differences to confront transnational crime that endangers citizens everywhere. This development deserves recognition as a mature, interest-based approach, showing that effective governance in a multipolar world requires the capacity to cooperate wherever it delivers concrete gains.
Breaking the ice with Beijing
Patel’s engagement with his Chinese counterparts marks a clear departure from years of a near-total freeze in high-level law-enforcement contacts. In November 2025, he became the first FBI director to visit China since 2016, meeting Vice Minister of Public Security Xu Datong. He returned in July 2026 for discussions with State Councillor and Minister of Public Security Wang Xiaohong.
Chinese officials have called for deepening constructive dialogue grounded in mutual respect. According to Patel, the results were made possible by direct engagement under the Trump administration’s leadership. The relationship did not emerge overnight; it followed President Donald Trump’s May 2025 visit to China and subsequent high-level understandings on fentanyl precursors. What matters is that both sides chose to institutionalize the opening rather than allow it to remain a one-off diplomatic gesture.
Institutionalizing daily cooperation
Four dedicated working groups now operate on cyber fraud, violent crimes against children, counternarcotics, and a fugitive task force. Chinese Ministry of Public Security officers travel to FBI facilities in the US on a monthly rotating basis; FBI personnel make reciprocal trips to China. Officials on both sides report near-daily communication – an intensity of contact that had not existed for years.
This steady exchange has already produced operational results. One notable joint action, Operation Sand Dollar, brought together the FBI, China’s Ministry of Public Security, and Dubai police against a major cyber-scam center. The effort yielded roughly 300 arrests, the seizure of approximately $300 million, and the liberation of thousands of trafficked workers. Such outcomes illustrate the practical value of treating certain criminal networks as shared problems rather than exclusive domains of competition.
Patel has been explicit about the philosophy guiding this work. He has noted that the decision to pursue cooperation with China despite widespread advice against it proves what is possible with almost any counterpart: “The fact that we did it with China when everyone said, ‘Don’t do it,’ and, ‘You can’t do it,’ shows what we can do with almost anyone.” The partnerships are deliberately limited to specific categories of transnational crime; they do not pretend to resolve broader strategic disagreements. That clarity of scope makes them sustainable under the current circumstances.
Opening a channel to Moscow
The same pragmatic approach is being applied to Russia. Patel is preparing a visit to Moscow and St. Peterburg, tentatively scheduled for mid-October, with the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) expected to serve as host. The last sitting FBI director known to have traveled to Russia was Robert Mueller in 2013. Patel’s planned trip builds on quieter collaboration already underway for more than a year against violent criminal networks.
This outreach occurs against the backdrop of Trump’s broader effort to reduce tensions with Moscow. Special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have made repeated visits, including meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and further contacts are anticipated. Putin’s special envoy on foreign investment and economic cooperation, Kirill Dmitriev, has publicly welcomed the emerging China-Russia-US intelligence and law-enforcement cooperation, signaling that Moscow sees value in the channel.
Complementary signals across government
Patel’s initiative does not stand alone. Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby, long regarded as a China hardliner, has expressed clear interest in visiting China and revitalizing professional military-to-military ties. Colby’s willingness to explore direct engagement signals an important evolution: Even those most focused on strategic competition now recognize that sustained channels of communication and cooperation on discrete issues can reduce miscalculation risks and open space for practical problem-solving.
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has likewise signaled openness to restoring reliable military communication channels with Beijing. Hegseth has publicly emphasized the need to reboot US-China military hotlines and crisis-management mechanisms that had atrophied in recent years. These steps are framed not as concessions but as tools for managing competition responsibly – ensuring that routine incidents at sea or in the air do not spiral into larger confrontations.
Together, Colby’s interest in revitalizing professional ties and Hegseth’s push to restore functional hotlines illustrate that selective engagement is gaining traction across key national-security institutions. These parallel moves suggest a wider recognition that treating every interaction as zero-sum is neither realistic nor in the interest of American, Chinese, or Russian security.
Other recent examples reinforce the point. The US and China have coordinated on precursor chemical controls and fugitive repatriations even without an extradition treaty. Quiet work with Russian counterparts against organized crime has continued despite the larger geopolitical climate. In each case, the governing principle is the same: Identify overlapping interests, establish disciplined mechanisms, and measure success by results rather than by empty moralism.
A model for multipolar security
Looking ahead, the Patel approach offers a template for how great powers can manage coexistence. It rejects both naive engagement and reflexive isolation. Instead, it practices disciplined pragmatism: Cooperate where interests align, and compete where they do not. In a world no longer organized around a single dominant power, the ability to work with ‘non-traditional’ partners on concrete problems is a strategic asset, not a liability.
The emerging US-China-Russia law-enforcement architecture will hardly dissolve deeper disagreements over Iran, Taiwan, Ukraine, or technological rivalry. It does not need to. Its value lies in demonstrating that even adversaries can still protect their interests from common threats. That demonstration strengthens, rather than weakens, national security. By proving that such cooperation is possible, Patel has expanded the toolkit available to American policymakers. In an unpredictable international environment, that expansion is both necessary and overdue.
