The Political Manipulation of U.S. Intelligence Services

Twenty-two years ago, the United States launched an invasion of Iraq justified by claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. These allegations would later prove to have been false. Intelligence had been manipulated to fit the desired outcome. As the notorious "Downing Street Memo" that described a meeting of top British officials discussing classified U.S. plans for the war put it, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." A Washington Post article published yesterday suggests that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard appears to have embarked on a mission to repeat the manipulation of intelligence that marked the Iraq War run-up, but this time on steroids.

For those who don't remember the events of the early 2020s, then Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations, arguing that Iraq had ongoing programs to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence," Powell claimed. The National Security Advisor at the time, Condoleezza Rice, warned Americans about a "mushroom cloud," and Vice President Dick Cheney made false claims about a link between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. All of these officials were spreading misinformation that was later exposed as being false. In the aftermath of the war, there were investigations, inquiries, and considerable soul-searching into how there could have been such a massive intelligence failure. What was found is that U.S. intelligence services had largely reached accurate conclusions. What had gone wrong is that the intelligence had been cherry-picked and misused. Cheney and his staff, in particular, had manipulated the available intelligence to lead to their desired conclusions. The war was justified, in effect, on alleged intelligence findings that were at odds with the actual determinations of the nation's intelligence agencies.

Gabbard now appears determined to ensure that intelligence is again manipulated for political ends. But this is not a simple case of history repeating itself. Back in the time of Powell, Rice, and Cheney, the intelligence services were largely left intact; it was their findings, not the agencies themselves, that were manipulated. Gabbard, however, seems to be attempting to transition the entire U.S. intelligence apparatus into a system aimed at supporting cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump rather than acting independently with the goal of allowing conclusions to be determined by the intelligence.

One example of what Gabbard has been doing involves the Trump administration policy to rendition Venezuelans accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador and Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act that allowed the removals. The Alien Enemies Act is a rarely used law that is meant for times of war or foreign invasion. Trump defended his invocation at this time because he claimed that Tren de Aragua is supported by the government of Venezuela and, therefore, Tren de Aragua's presence in the United States constitutes a foreign invasion. When the White House requested an intelligence assessment of ties between the Venezuelan government and Tren de Aragua, the resulting report found that there was no governmental support for the gang. This undercut Trump's legal justification.

When the findings of that investigation leaked, Gabbard's office requested a second assessment be conducted. As the Washington Post reports, "All U.S. intelligence agencies, with the exception of the FBI, still concluded that Venezuela was not directing the group." In response, Gabbard fired the National Intelligence Council’s two top officials. She also fired two people who had been involved in the Freedom of Information Act process that had led to the release of the report. The Washington Post quotes a former senior intelligence official as saying the firings had a "chilling reaction" and caused intelligence analysts to question whether they should act as honest brokers.

The Washington Post article also mentions two reports prepared under the administration of former President Joe Biden that Gabbard declassified and released to the public. Gabbard made false claims about the contents of the reports and described them as demonstrating facts that were the opposite of what the documents actually contained. This is a fairly brazen bit of lying on Gabbard's part.

However, according to the Washington Post article, the worst may be yet to come. Gabbard has established a special team named the Director’s Initiative Group or DIG. This group is aimed at enforcing Trump's executive order ending the "weaponization" of government. According to the Post, this group has attempted to "gain access to emails and chat logs of the largest U.S. spy agencies with the aim of using artificial intelligence tools to ferret out what the administration deems as efforts to undermine its agenda." The article goes on to say, "Some senior intelligence officials are also privately concerned that the effort could be used to pursue perceived disloyalty to the Trump administration, including to identify individuals who implemented the policies of the previous administration." Later in the article, the Post says that DIG's effort "has fueled anxiety among some career intelligence professionals that Gabbard may be allowing politics to taint what is meant to be the apolitical job".

The Washington Post quotes Representative Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, as saying, "In their zeal to root out ‘politicization,’ which often seems to be shorthand for anything less than unconditional support for the president, there is a danger of creating an echo chamber within the intelligence community or creating counterintelligence risks." Obviously, there is a danger in having intelligence services reach determinations that are aimed at meeting political goals rather than being honest assessments. The manipulated intelligence used to justify the Iraq War is evidence of that. However, Trump may well want politically manipulated intelligence instead of accurate reporting. For Trump, reality and truth are what he says they are. Let's not forget that when confronted with a storm map that showed a path that contradicted what he had said, Trump simply took out his Sharpie and drew a new path. Similarly, after Gabbard testified before Congress that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon, Trump told reporters that "I don’t care what she said" and argued that Iran was pursuing such weapons. Gabbard was then left out of subsequent Iran war meetings.

Trump has clearly sent the message to Gabbard that she should tell him what he wants to hear, or there will be repercussions. At the very least, she will simply be ignored. Gabbard, in turn, is ensuring that this message is understood by the intelligence services. If an analyst comes to a conclusion that does not support Trump's policy, that analyst may well be fired. This is not theoretical but something that has already happened. In this administration, conclusions that contradict the administration's political goals are seen as disloyal and failing to support the President's agenda. There is an entire team devoted to rooting out those who make such conclusions.

The short-term danger of Gabbard's actions is that the Trump administration may not be receiving the best information and, therefore, will be acting on the basis of intelligence that is not accurate. For Trump, this is probably more of a feature than a bug. But it may very well lead to missteps and counterproductive moves. For instance, maybe we will invade a foreign country on the basis of falsified intelligence. Even worse, dangers may be ignored or not reported. In the long term, the U.S. intelligence services may be destroyed or lose effectiveness. Professional analysts will leave rather than participate in propaganda efforts, leaving behind hollowed-out agencies full of political toadies willing to dance to whatever tune is called. It is even possible that these politicized agencies will be turned against the American people who Trump increasingly sees as his enemy.