Podcast Summary
Intelligence Community's Assessment of Russia's Election Interference and Trump's Reaction: The intelligence community assessed Russia's preference for Trump in the 2020 elections, but Trump's displeasure led key officials to avoid discussing it with him, fearing backlash.
During the summer of 2019, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) regarding Russia's involvement in the 2020 US elections was under scrutiny due to concerns that the document's assessment of Russia favoring President Trump might upset the president. This investigation into the relationship between the intelligence community and President Trump revealed a pattern of the president's displeasure with any suggestion that he was Putin's favorite, leading key intelligence officials to avoid discussing the topic with him. The NIE, which discussed Russia's efforts to influence the 2020 elections and their preference for Trump, was a consensus judgment among senior analysts led by Christopher Bort. Despite the intelligence community's consensus, Trump's former senior adviser revealed that Bolton and Mulvaney, who were Trump's national security adviser and acting chief of staff in 2019, kept the subject off the president's agenda to avoid any potential backlash. Ultimately, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats refused to modify the assessment, emphasizing the importance of sticking to the analysts' findings.
Trump's Dismissal of DNI Coats and Editing of NIE Report: Trump's mistrust of the intelligence community led to the dismissal of DNI Coats and editing of an NIE report, creating doubts about the credibility of intelligence and law enforcement officials and fueling a contentious dynamic between the White House and the intelligence community.
The relationship between President Trump and the intelligence community was markedly different from that of past presidents due to the ongoing suspicions and allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election. In July 2019, Trump suddenly announced the dismissal of Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, replacing him with retired Vice Admiral Joseph Maguire. During Coats' final days in office, the NIE, which contained a conclusion that Trump had criticized, was under review. Beth Sanner, the ODNI's deputy director for mission integration, played a role in editing the document to clarify the Russian motivation for its influence activities. The final version of the NIE no longer stated that Russia favored Trump, instead concluding that Russian leaders probably assessed the chances of improving relations with the US would diminish under a different president. This distinction, while seemingly minor, later allowed the White House to question the credibility of intelligence and law enforcement officials when testifying about Russia's interest in Trump's reelection in a closed-door congressional committee briefing. Trump's relationship with the intelligence community was characterized by mistrust and allegations of spying on his campaign, creating a contentious dynamic that differed significantly from past presidencies.
The strained relationship between Trump and the intelligence community: The Trump administration's tense relationship with the intelligence community has led to a profound reordering of the IC's world, eroding trust and causing many officials to fear speaking truth to power, resulting in a divided and uncertain workforce.
The relationship between President Trump and the intelligence community has been fraught with tension and animosity since before his inauguration. This has resulted in a profound reordering of the intelligence community's world and work. Intelligence officials have been placed in the unusual position of having to justify the importance of their work, protect their colleagues from political retribution, and demonstrate fealty to a president. This has led to a worrying erosion of the ODNI and a softening of key judgments, with the intelligence community becoming less willing to speak truth to power. The result has been devastating, with many intelligence officials afraid of speaking out for fear of reprisals or dismissals. This churn and uncertainty has had a profound impact on the thousands of people making up the US intelligence community, leaving them divided and afraid of their own shadow.
President Trump's Hostile First Visit to CIA: During his first visit to CIA, Trump boasted, questioned intelligence officials, and showed reservations towards the intelligence community. His hostility was rooted in past criticisms and belief that they had deceived public.
During his first visit to the CIA after being elected, President Trump boasted about himself, questioned the judgment of intelligence officials, and showed reservations towards the intelligence community despite their criticisms of him during the campaign. He was dismissive during a briefing about Russia's interference in the 2016 election and even blamed intelligence officials when the dossier containing allegations about his campaign's ties to Russia was leaked. Trump's hostility towards the intelligence community was not just a matter of self-interest but also rooted in his belief that they had deceived the public in the past, particularly regarding the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. The CIA, historically, had learned to accommodate presidents, but Trump's compulsive tendency to disregard evidence that went against his beliefs raised concerns about the potential for further misunderstandings and miscommunications between the White House and the intelligence community.
U.S. Presidents and their Intelligence Briefings: A Changing Relationship: Presidents' approaches to intelligence briefings have differed, with some taking them faithfully and others overlooking critical information, leading to potential conflicts of interest and diplomatic issues.
The relationship between U.S. presidents and their intelligence briefings, as well as the intelligence community as a whole, has varied greatly. Bill Clinton, despite his unconventional schedule, still read his briefings. George W. Bush, whose father had been a CIA director, took them faithfully, but the infamous 2001 briefing on Bin Laden's plans to attack the U.S. was overlooked. Obama took daily briefings, earning the nickname "Doctor Doom" for his grim counterterrorism updates. Trump, with his economic focus and unconventional ways, posed unique challenges. He was accustomed to dealing and sharing information informally, often with billionaires and business associates. His administration saw an increase in economic briefings and the presence of wealthy businesspeople on his intelligence advisory board, causing unease due to potential conflicts of interest. Kushner's handling of security clearances and interactions with foreign leaders, particularly with Saudi Arabia's crown prince, raised serious concerns. Trump's indiscretion in sharing sensitive information with foreign leaders, such as the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, and a tweet of a sensitive space facility image in Iran, damaged trust and created diplomatic issues.
Trump's Indifference to Briefings and Tangents Caused Challenges for His National Security Team: Despite Trump's lack of interest and tendency for distraction during briefings, his principal briefer and NSA maintained their integrity and refused to modify materials for political purposes.
During Trump's presidency, his lack of interest and tendency for distraction posed significant concerns for his officials. Trump's briefings, particularly those from his National Security Council, were often met with indifference. His aides tried various methods to engage him, including visual presentations, but it remained a challenge. Trump's tangents often veered off topic to include personal matters and unrelated issues. For instance, during a briefing about an adversarial nation's weapon system, Trump was more interested in the material's composition than its capabilities. Trump's principal briefer, Ted Gastaro, found it a daunting task, and Coats, his boss, also faced challenges in keeping Trump informed. Despite these challenges, Coats maintained his integrity and refused to modify briefing materials for political purposes, even on the sensitive topic of Russia. Bolton's memoir reveals that Trump's stance on Russia was not as tough as it appeared, and he did not specifically order a cyber attack against a Russian troll farm. Overall, Trump's indifference to briefings and his tendency to veer off topic created a challenging environment for his national security team.
President Trump's Indifference to Russian Meddling: Despite concerns from officials, Trump prioritized other issues over Russian election interference, causing delays in implementing sanctions.
During the summer of 2018, despite private concerns from cabinet officials about Russian meddling in the upcoming elections, President Trump showed indifference to the issue. At an NSC meeting, he interrupted Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats to ask about building a border wall instead. Coats had previously been publicly snubbed by Trump when he defended the intelligence community's assessment of Russian meddling in the 2016 election during a press conference with Putin. Coats, along with Pompeo, Nielsen, and Mattis, worked together to draft an executive order enabling sanctions on foreign interference in the American electoral process. Trump wasn't briefed on these efforts due to concerns about how he would react. Instead, Bolton presented the order for Trump to sign during a discussion about the border wall. Coats and Haspel later met with Trump to clarify their Senate testimony about Russian election meddling, but Trump was displeased and referred to Coats as an "idiot" behind his back. Coats prepared a resignation letter, but Trump rejected it due to the ongoing Mueller investigation. Coats agreed to wait until the end of the fiscal year to leave and suggested potential replacements to the White House.
Tension between Intelligence Officials and Trump Administration: Despite pressure from Trump, intelligence officials like Coats held firm on their assessments, while others like Pompeo and Haspel were more accommodating. Amidst this turmoil, a new analyst, Pearson, was appointed to address election threats.
The relationship between intelligence officials and the Trump administration was marked by significant tension and disagreement. When Gordon, a former Duke basketball player, was introduced to Trump in 2017, he focused on her athletic background rather than her qualifications. Later, at an intelligence forum, Trump's former CIA directors, Brennan and Hayden, publicly criticized him for undermining the intelligence community. Gordon, as the moderator, kept the conversation moving. Coats, the director of National Intelligence, held firm on the intelligence community's assessment of Russia's interference in the 2016 election, despite pressure from Trump. In contrast, Trump's first CIA director, Pompeo, and his successor, Haspel, were more accommodating to the president. When Coats was replaced by Ratcliffe, a Trump loyalist, there was concern within the intelligence community. Trump defended his choice, stating that the intelligence agencies had "run amok." Amidst this turmoil, an experienced analyst named Shelby Pearson was appointed to a new post within the intelligence community to address election threats.
Russia's Preferred Candidate in 2020 Elections: Intelligence Assessment Met with Skepticism: Politicization of intelligence and challenges for intelligence officials to provide unbiased assessments to policymakers were underscored during the 2019 impeachment hearings when Russia's preference for President Trump in the 2020 elections was assessed, leading to Maguire's firing and replacement with a Trump loyalist.
During the 2019 impeachment hearings, intelligence officials testified that Russia preferred President Trump in the November elections. This assessment was based on intelligence findings from the 2016 election and ongoing efforts by Russia to interfere in the 2020 election. The assessment was met with skepticism and objections from some Republican members of Congress. After the hearing, Trump confronted his intelligence chief, Maguire, about the assessment during a routine intelligence briefing. Maguire tried to explain that it was another intelligence official, Pearson, who had made the assessment during the hearing. Trump's reaction led to Maguire's eventual firing and replacement with a Trump loyalist, Grenell, with no intelligence community experience. This incident highlights the politicization of intelligence and the challenges intelligence officials face in providing unbiased assessments to policymakers.
Trump administration's pressure on intelligence community's independence: The Trump administration put pressure on the intelligence community to compromise their independence or risk being replaced, leading to a reorganization and potential purges.
During the Trump administration, the intelligence community faced a difficult choice: compromise their independence or risk being replaced. This was exemplified by the case of Joseph Maguire, who withheld a whistleblower's complaint to avoid administration displeasure, but was still removed from his position. In response, Trump appointee Richard Grenell reorganized the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, leading to the departure of several officials. Grenell's advisor, Kashyap Patel, was reportedly responsible for the downsizing of the ODNI staff, raising concerns about potential purges. The situation reached a head when Trump nominated William Evanina, another appointee, to head the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. Evanina made a misleading statement about election security threats, conflating above-board influence campaigns with clandestine interference efforts. This compromise was small but significant, and highlighted the ongoing tension between the intelligence community's independence and the administration's demands.
ODNI acknowledges Russia's election interference and China, Iran's influence campaigns: The ODNI must clarify and distinguish between Russia's sophisticated election interference and China, Iran's less insidious influence campaigns to protect the democratic process in the 2020 election.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has publicly acknowledged Russia's efforts to denigrate former Vice President Biden and the anti-Russia establishment, while also alleging that China and Iran are attempting to defeat President Trump. However, the ODNI's statements lacked clarity and distinction between Russia's sophisticated election disrupting capabilities and the less insidious influence campaigns of China and Iran. This political calculation was highlighted by Michael Morell, former CIA acting director, who expressed concern over Russia's interference in the 2016 election deepening America's divisions rather than bringing the nation together. With the 2020 election approaching, it is crucial for the ODNI to provide clear and independent assessments to help protect the integrity of the democratic process.
