The Federal Bureau of Investigation is preparing to separate several hundred employees, according to multiple people who spoke to CBS News, a move that has triggered alarm among lawmakers, former bureau officials and labor advocates who say the public and Congress deserve a clear accounting of the scope and rationale.

Sources described the action — described internally by the bureau as “separations” — as a personnel sweep that includes involuntary and voluntary departures from a range of job categories across the agency. The term “separated” in federal human resources parlance can encompass removals, resignations, retirements and other exits; the precise mix in this instance was not immediately clear. The bureau did not provide an on-the-record explanation to CBS News, and an FBI spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

The timing and scale of the move are significant. The FBI, which carries a portfolio of national security, criminal and public-corruption investigations, relies on specialized career staff in field offices and headquarters for continuity and institutional knowledge. Former senior officials warned that large, rapid departures — whether planned or abrupt — carry risks of case disruption, increased workloads for remaining employees and degraded institutional memory.

“This is the sort of personnel action that should be accompanied by a clear operational plan,” said one former counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal security matters. “Without that, investigators and the public can rightly worry about disruptions to investigations and a loss of expertise.”

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed interest in fuller disclosure. Members of the House Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, which exercise oversight of the bureau, signaled they will press for answers about the criteria used for separations, the number of agents and analysts affected, and whether the action followed internal Inspector General recommendations or arose from administrative reorganization.

Labor advocates cautioned that broad separations can exacerbate morale problems that have troubled the bureau in recent years. Federal employee representatives have previously raised concerns about inconsistent disciplinary processes, whistleblower protections and the potential for politically motivated personnel actions. The absence of transparency in the current episode has revived those anxieties.

The Justice Department has faced competing pressures in recent congressional sessions: demands for accountability over investigative practices, calls to protect agents from politicization, and congressional interest in constraining or expanding the bureau’s resources. Staffing decisions are made against that complex backdrop, where operational needs and political scrutiny intersect.

Analysts say the short-term operational impacts will depend on which offices and job classifications are affected. Separations concentrated among administrative personnel would have different consequences than exits of seasoned special agents or intelligence analysts handling ongoing counterintelligence and counterterrorism cases. Observers also noted the potential cost savings of workforce reductions can be offset by longer-term losses in expertise that are costly to rebuild.

For now, critical questions remain unanswered: the exact number of separations, the breakdown by role and location, the justification provided to affected employees, and what steps the bureau will take to maintain investigative continuity. Congressional committees and watchdogs are likely to demand those details in the coming days, framing the episode not only as an internal personnel matter but as a test of accountability at one of the nation’s most consequential law enforcement agencies.