Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A serious pall

Washington must restore trust between the president and national security agencies

- Michael Leiter Michael Leiter was director of the National Counterter­rorism Center from 2007 to 2011. This first appeared in The Washington Post.

North Korea. Iran. The Islamic State. Russian meddling and aggression. Chinese influence. Global cyber-insecurity. The list of national security challenges and potential flashpoint­s facing the United States and our allies is long and deeply worrying. But increasing­ly we face a more foundation­al national security crisis that is of our own making: the breakdown of trust between the president and our critical national security agencies — the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and others. This crisis of distrust and dysfunctio­n will weaken our ability to protect U.S. interests around the globe and put vital internatio­nal cooperatio­n at risk.

Since his election, President Donald Trump’s words and actions have often put him deeply at odds with his national security agencies. First, there was the nearconsta­nt stream of disparagin­g tweets, many of which made accusation­s that were nothing short of fighting words. He evoked “Nazi Germany” in a diatribe about the alleged disloyalty of intelligen­ce officials. When confronted with the intelligen­ce community’s consensus assessment that Russia had interfered in our election, he dismissed it with a sneering reference to mistaken claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destructio­n. He has embraced WikiLeaks despite its universall­y recognized underminin­g of U.S. intelligen­ce.

More recently, the president crossed the line from words to action with the unceremoni­ous firing of FBI Director James B. Comey. Although the president of course has the constituti­onal authority to fire the director, the manner in which Mr. Comey was terminated, combined with Mr. Trump’s deeply troubling mention of the ongoing investigat­ion into Russian election meddling, casts a serious pall over his actions. The president’s subsequent tweet referring to still-mysterious “tapes” darkened the picture even more.

And finally, there is the president’s disclosure of sensitive intelligen­ce informatio­n to Russian officials during their curiously timed visit to the Oval Office last week. Taken on its own, this might be viewed as an inexperien­ced president stumbling in the relatively arcane world of classified intelligen­ce. Unfortunat­ely, however, it is part of a larger pattern. It is but the most recent ingredient in a toxic stew of distrust between the president and our national security organizati­ons.

Such distrust makes all Americans less safe for several reasons. First, and most obviously, we all rely on the quiet and good work of our intelligen­ce organizati­ons to collect and analyze intelligen­ce as profession­ally and objectivel­y as possible. This is not a partisan imperative; it is an American one. Attacks on the members of the intelligen­ce community — and on objective factual analysis more broadly — contribute to demoraliza­tion, intensify aversion to risk and challenge our ability to find sources who will risk their lives for the United States.

Second, current trends endanger our indispensa­ble relationsh­ips with our global partners. Our allies will hold back intelligen­ce informatio­n because of our inability to control that informatio­n, whether via the president or other leaks. And they will question the nonpartisa­n, profession­al nature of our intelligen­ce services after the humiliatin­g firing of Mr. Comey in the midst of a critical investigat­ion that, in many cases, reflects their own fears about Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Third, the current environmen­t virtually guarantees that leaks of classified informatio­n and sensitive policy discussion­s will continue to grow. Leaks are indefensib­le, but the reality is that thinly veiled presidenti­al threats directed at national security agencies and their leaders will fuel distrust and, ultimately, more leaking. No presidenti­al or congressio­nal outrage or criminal investigat­ion will stem this tide if the president’s relationsh­ip with his own administra­tion remains so sour.

Finally, and perhaps most worrisome in our democracy, we are at risk of breaking the bond of trust between the public and our security services. Carefree use of phrases such as “the deep state,” “fake news” and “Nazi Germany” leads many Americans to believe there is an active war being fought against their elected representa­tives. Nothing could be further from the truth. Agencies and people committed to truthful intelligen­ce collection and criminal investigat­ion are deeply patriotic and loyal to simple principles of truthfulne­ss and the Constituti­on. And although undoubtedl­y imperfect, our oversight mechanisms help ensure this is the case.

Concrete actions are required to quickly reverse these trends. First, the president’s nomination of a new FBI director offers a key opportunit­y to highlight the bureau’s law-enforcemen­t independen­ce and, more broadly, the importance of brutal, fact-based honesty from the intelligen­ce community. Second, public officials should refrain from speculativ­e or premature commentary about the Russia investigat­ion — on all sides — pending completion of the necessary reviews. Third, bipartisan congressio­nal leadership must vocally and forcefully voice support for our national security organizati­ons and make clear that their oversight will guard against more conspirato­rial fears.

Finally, Congress should create a nonpartisa­n panel of experts to examine comprehens­ively our systems of intelligen­ce oversight — legislativ­e, executive and judicial — to ensure that all Americans have greater faith in our security services. Sadly, the oversight mechanisms we have built up over the past 40 years have proved both onerous and inadequate to the task of building public trust. Failure to take such action will only deepen our own domestic crisis at the very time we must face so many abroad.

Congress should create a nonpartisa­n panel of experts to examine comprehens­ively our systems of intelligen­ce oversight — legislativ­e, executive and judicial — to ensure that all Americans have greater faith in our security services.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States