Sep 24th 2019

When America’s President Can’t be Trusted

by Kent Harrington

 

Kent Harrington, a former senior CIA analyst, served as National Intelligence Officer for East Asia, Chief of Station in Asia, and the CIA’s Director of Public Affairs. 

 

ATLANTA – The White House is trying to prevent the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from viewing a whistleblower complaintdetailing President Donald Trump’s repeated attempts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading Democratic contender to challenge Trump for the presidency in 2020. Given Trump’s refusal to cooperate with nearly a dozen other congressional investigations, this episode will most likely end in another stalemate. And polls suggest that the public is tuning out the Trump administration’s daily reality-TV dramas.

But regardless of whether the Ukraine scandal remains front-page news, it will haunt the US intelligence community, which has been Trump’s bête noire since the day he took office. Trump has relentlessly attacked US intelligence agencies, cozied up to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and divulged secrets to foreign officials, potentially burning high-value sources. This behavior had already raised serious concerns about whether Trump can be trusted to receive sensitive intelligence at all. Now, intelligence leaders must ask themselves how far they are willing to go in toeing the White House line.

There is no question that the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IGIC), Michael K. Atkinson, made the right call when he recommended that the whistleblower complaint be disclosed to Congress. Such referrals are his prerogative by law, and a decade of legal precedent further supports the decision. Nonetheless, the acting director of national intelligence (DNI), Joseph Maguire, is blocking the IGIC’s referral, claiming that it does not involve “urgent” intelligence, and instead concerns privileged – meaning, presidential – communications.

With the administration and Congress at loggerheads and investigations into Trump’s behavior expanding, more White House denials, duplicity, and foot-dragging are certain, as are attacks on the intelligence community. In firing up his base for the 2020 campaign, Trump will use the whistleblower complaint to support his claims that a mythical “deep state” is out to get him. Indeed, he has already dismissed the whistleblower as a “partisan,” questioning the official’s patriotism. The name-calling echoes his broader campaign of character assassination against former intelligence and law-enforcement officials. Active-duty intelligence professionals have good reason to expect that they will soon be back in his sights, too.

Trump’s antipathy toward intelligence agencies has far-reaching implications for US national security. The DNI, the country’s top intelligence job, remains unfilled; if history is any guide, more senior officials will depart before the 2020 election, leaving further vacancies. Moreover, Trump has increasingly sought to fill key national-security positions with politically loyal stooges such as John Ratcliffe, a junior congressman whose nomination to serve as DNI was withdrawn following revelations that he had falsified his resume.

The 2020 campaign will make matters even worse for the intelligence community. Desperate to demonstrate his own power and accomplishments, Trump will be even less careful with classified information. In 2017, he compromised a sensitive Israeli intelligence operation in Syria by bragging about what he knew to visiting Russian diplomats. And just last month, he taunted Iran by tweeting a highly classified image from a US spy satellite, complete with detailed annotations of a missile failure at an Iranian test site. As private-sector analysts immediately pointed out, the image will be of immense value to US adversaries.

US spies do not – indeed, cannot – trust Trump. Earlier this month, we learned from multiple sources the CIA was forced to exfiltrate an exceptionally valuable Russian asset from Moscow in 2017, among other things, owing to concerns that Trump might jeopardize that individual’s safety. The Ukraine scandal reinforces those concerns, because it suggests that Trump will not hesitate to ignore the interests of US allies and intelligence partners when it suits his political interests.

The White House’s mysterious decision to withhold nearly $400 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine at the same time that it was pressuring Zelensky is just the latest example of this. Trump has also dismissed North Korea’s ongoing short-range missile tests as irrelevant, even though US, South Korean, and Japanese intelligence analysts see them as evidence of the North’s growing capacity to launch strikes against Japan and South Korea (and against American forces stationed in both countries).

The Ukraine affair also offers an early indication of how Trump will deal with intelligence that threatens his prospects for re-election. Attorney General William Barr’s official probe into the origins of the 2016 inquiry into Russian election interference exemplifies the White House effort to intimidate intelligence officials, presumably with the hope they will downplay their investigations of Russia’s continuing meddling. US intelligence and law-enforcement agencies – including the FBI in a major report last month – have warned that Russian attacks on the 2020 election are already in the works. Such findings put these agencies directly at odds with Trump, who still refuses to acknowledge that the Kremlin aided his 2016 campaign.

In the final analysis, the intelligence community’s ability to fulfill its proper function under such conditions will depend on its leaders. It has been almost a half-century since former CIA Director William Colby opened that agency’s files to congressional investigators, following allegations that it had been engaged in prohibited spying. Although his decision was controversial at the time, we now know that it preserved the intelligence community by creating an effective system of oversight.

Colby used to carry a miniature copy of the US Constitution with him wherever he went. In his view, the CIA was an integral part of American democracy, which relies on checks and balances. That is one message that the intelligence community can still make loud and clear – and without fearing that anyone’s cover will be blown.


Kent Harrington, a former senior CIA analyst, served as National Intelligence Officer for East Asia, Chief of Station in Asia, and the CIA’s Director of Public Affairs. 

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2019.

 


This article is brought to you by Project Syndicate that is a not for profit organization.

Project Syndicate brings original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by esteemed leaders and thinkers from around the world to readers everywhere. By offering incisive perspectives on our changing world from those who are shaping its economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivalled venue for informed public debate. Please see: www.project-syndicate.org.

Should you want to support Project Syndicate you can do it by using the PayPal icon below. Your donation is paid to Project Syndicate in full after PayPal has deducted its transaction fee. Facts & Arts neither receives information about your donation nor a commission.

 

 

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Aug 3rd 2009
A potentially decisive battle to define this year's health care debate - and the Obama Presidency - will take place in town hall meetings, little league bleaches, and conversations on door steps near yo
Aug 2nd 2009

The Obama administration's push for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace may have a much stronger likelihood of succeeding this time around because of the prevailing political and security dynamics.

Jul 30th 2009

MOSCOW - My great-grandfather, Nikita Khrushchev, has been on my mind recently. I suppose it was the 50th anniversary of the so-called "kitchen debate" which he held with Richard Nixon that first triggered my memories.

Jul 28th 2009

NEW YORK - In the afternoon of July 16 two men appeared to be breaking into a fine house in an expensive area of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Alerted by a telephone call, a policeman arrived smartly on the scene. He saw one black male standing inside the house and asked him to come out.

Jul 28th 2009

As the G-2 "strategic dialogue" between the US and China gets underway in Washington, I talked

Jul 28th 2009

I have a confession to make. I am an avid reader of personal advice columns. When I read those published generations ago, I feel that they provide a great insight what life was really like in those days--and what the prevailing norms were regarding what was considered right and wrong.

Jul 28th 2009

Jul 27th 2009

LONDON - In her brilliant book, "The Uses and Abuses of History" the historian Margaret Macmillan tells a story about two Americans discussing the atrocities of September 11, 2001. One draws an analogy with Pearl Harbor, Japan's attack on the US in 1941.

Jul 24th 2009

With a significant majority of Israelis and Palestinians in favor of a two-state
solution with peace and normal relations, why then there is no national drive in
either camp to push for a solution? The United States cannot equivocate with the
Jul 23rd 2009

Landrum Bolling, former President of the Lilly Endowment and Earlham College, has put together a collage of commentary from four outstanding American foreign policy giants.

Jul 22nd 2009

In contrast to the thesis -- much promoted by the president himself -- that he is not an ideologue but a pragmatic, Obama has laid out a strong new normative foundation for his foreign policy.

Jul 21st 2009
Today it would be hard to find one member of Congress who openly advocates the abolition of Medicare or Social Security.
Jul 20th 2009

LONDON - Mainstream economics subscribes to the theory that markets "clear" continuously.

Jul 16th 2009

Obama is challenged to come up with ways to pay for a health insurance plan that will cover most, if not all, Americans. Many call for cutting services and reducing fees for doctors and for hospitals. Others favor raising taxes one way or another. I say first cut out the crooks.

Jul 15th 2009
In the current health care debate, Democratic Members of Congress representing swing districts have often (though not always) been among the most cautious when it comes to supporting President Obama's proposals for health care reform.