A report titled “CIA officers sense a threat from within” by Shane Harris in the American magazine “The Atlantic” confirmed that an internal survey conducted by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) revealed concerns among employees that the Trump administration’s interventions are undermining intelligence work, and growing fears about the future independence of intelligence work, after the survey showed a significant increase in the number of analysts who believe that political pressures have begun to affect the objectivity of intelligence assessments, since the return of US President Donald Trump to the White House.
The writer, who specializes in national security and US intelligence issues, stated that the results of the annual survey conducted by the Ombudsman’s Office on the integrity of analysis within the agency have not been officially announced, but they reflect a growing feeling among analysts that they are under pressure to reach conclusions that align with the wishes of the political leadership, rather than adhering to the facts as revealed by intelligence information.
Direct criticism of Tulsi Gabbard
The report cites a quote from former CIA officer Ray Klein – who led the analysis department during the Cuban Missile Crisis – that “objectivity is the only virtue that really matters in intelligence work,” arguing that recent developments raise questions about the current administration’s commitment to this principle.
According to the report, many of the analysts participating in the survey directed direct criticism at former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, whom they accused of making decisions they considered politically motivated.
Among the most prominent of these issues was the dismissal of two senior intelligence officials after they refused to amend an assessment confirming that the Venezuelan government does not run the “Trin de Aragua” gang, while the administration sought to prove the opposite in order to provide a legal justification for deporting Venezuelan migrants.
Participants also objected to Gabbard's decision to revoke the security clearances of dozens of current and former national security officials, including officials involved in investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election, an issue Trump has consistently described as the "Russia hoax."
Despite these concerns, the report indicates that the majority of participants expressed satisfaction with the performance of their direct managers within the intelligence agency, stressing that they are still keen to protect the independence of analysis and adhere to professional standards, which reflects the continued adherence of the executive levels within the agency to the rules of intelligence work despite political pressures.
The report argues that the problem is not limited to Gabbard, but reflects a broader political climate in which Trump has repeatedly accused intelligence agencies of providing assessments that do not serve his positions, and has asked his officials to search for evidence to support his claims about the 2020 election being rigged.
The report quoted former intelligence official Stephen Cash as saying that Trump treated the intelligence community as if it were a political propaganda machine, which contradicts the core mission of intelligence agencies, which is to provide objective information and analysis to decision-makers regardless of how well it aligns with their political views.
In contrast, the report stated that the CIA, through its Director of Public Affairs, Liz Lyons, affirmed its commitment to providing independent analyses to decision-makers, pointing to the success of a number of recent military and intelligence operations as evidence of the agency's continued competence.
Fear of losing jobs and security clearances
However, the report provides another example of the pressures officials may face when their assessments conflict with the official narrative, pointing to the dismissal of Defense Intelligence Agency Director General Jeffrey Cruz after an initial report concluded that U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities delayed the Iranian nuclear program by only a few months, while Trump declared that those facilities were “completely destroyed.”
The author asserts that attempts by politicians to influence intelligence assessments are not new, but have become more intense in recent years, as some officers no longer just fear losing their jobs or security clearances, but also fear having their identities exposed and being targeted by online incitement campaigns or harassed by supporters of the president.
Shane Harris concludes his report by noting that the survey results will be sent to Congress, which oversees the intelligence agencies, at a time when the Senate is preparing to discuss the appointment of a new Director of National Intelligence, amid calls for maintaining the independence of intelligence analysis to be one of the most prominent criteria for evaluating the new candidate.
Tags:
america
