Steady State Quick Hit: Politicization of Intelligence -- A Mortal Sin
Steady State | Quick Hit Press Availability May 29, 2025
Summary (watch the video here)
Steven Cash of the Steady State introduced a discussion on the politicization of intelligence, which Larry Pfeiffer defined as influencing assessments for preferred policies. Panelists William Piekney, Russ Travers, and Annie Pforzheimer expressed concerns about ignoring or rewriting intelligence for political agendas and the potential for a constitutional crisis. Participants discussed the pervasiveness of politicization across the intelligence community, its negative impact on analyst morale due to recent events and the administration's perceived devaluation of objective intelligence, as well as the difficulty in focusing collection efforts amidst fluctuating policies. Concerns were also raised regarding whistleblower protections, differences in current politicization compared to the past, potential influence of Tulsi Gabbard at ODNI, increased technological monitoring of analysts, the impact on operational activities and counterintelligence, and the political prioritization of intelligence collection.
Details
Introduction to the Steady State Steven Cash, the executive director of the Steady State, introduced the organization as a group of former national security officials concerned about an existential threat to the nation (00:00:00). He explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the politicization of intelligence, a topic they termed "the mortal sin," with experts from the Steady State and members of the media (00:01:18). Steven Cash outlined the meeting format, including brief introductions from panelists followed by questions from the press (00:00:00) (00:02:37).
Definition of Politicization of Intelligence Larry Pfeiffer defined the politicization of intelligence as efforts to influence intelligence assessments to support preferred policies or ideologies. He noted that attempts to politicize intelligence are not new and that the intelligence community works diligently to present factual analysis, including dissenting views, to policymakers (00:07:07).
Collection Perspective on Intelligence William Piekney, drawing from their experience in the collection end of the CIA, highlighted the patchwork nature of collected intelligence and the collaborative efforts with analysts to form a comprehensive picture (00:09:56). They also raised the issue of the relevance of intelligence to an administration, suggesting that the current climate involves questioning whether the administration values objective intelligence (00:12:19).
The "Mortal Sin" of Politicization Russ Travers supported the characterization of politicization as a "mortal sin," expressing concern over instances where intelligence is ignored or rewritten to fit a political agenda. They contrasted appropriate engagement with intelligence findings with the problematic act of demanding changes to analytic conclusions (00:13:29) (00:16:03). Annie Pforzheimer added that the danger extends to using potentially skewed intelligence to unlock domestic legal options and disregard due process, raising concerns about a constitutional crisis (00:17:12).
Concerns About Politicization Across the Intelligence Community Warren Strobel from the Washington Post inquired whether politicization concerns were limited to the ODNI. William Piekney responded that it is not solely related to the DNI, as the issue arises when intelligence clashes with the administration's beliefs and policies, regardless of the originating agency (00:18:35). Larry Pfeiffer emphasized that the prospect of being fired for issuing intelligence contrary to desired policy could have a chilling effect on analysts across the entire intelligence community (00:19:59). Russ Travers echoed this concern, stating that attacks on analytic products could lead to self-censorship among analysts (00:22:17).
Impact of Recent Events on Analyst Morale Larry Pfeiffer highlighted recent instances, such as Tulsi Gabbard's declassification of intelligence reports and the House Intel Committee's statements, as further attacks on the analytic integrity of the intelligence community, negatively impacting analyst morale (00:23:33). William Piekney underscored that the current situation raises questions about whether the administration genuinely wants objective intelligence, as it seems to be deliberately cutting itself off from the flow of information (00:24:46).
Politicization and Policy Focus Jesse Rodriguez from MSNBC questioned the potential detrimental effects of politicizing intelligence on understanding different regions. William Piekney noted the difficulty for the intelligence community to focus on specific policies when those policies are in constant flux, citing examples with Russia, alliances, and various regions (00:26:54) (00:42:05).
Whistleblower Protections and Disclosure to the Press Jonathan Landay from Reuters asked about the point at which intelligence analysts might have an obligation to use whistleblower protections or disclose information to the press due to politicization (00:29:28). Larry Pfeiffer advised exhausting internal and oversight mechanisms first but acknowledged the role of a free press as a check on power (00:31:46). Steven Cash emphasized the broader context of pressure on government employees and the potential for retaliation, even suggesting challenges in retaining legal counsel for whistleblowers (00:34:19).
Differences in Politicization Compared to the Past Shaun Waterman, a freelance reporter, questioned what makes the current situation different from historical instances of intelligence politicization (00:35:27). Annie Pforzheimer reiterated that using intelligence for domestic legal distinctions and to unlock executive powers in unprecedented ways is a key difference (00:36:37). Russ Travers distinguished the current situation from the Iraq War context, where the intelligence community had significant factual errors, whereas now, in the case of Venezuela, there appears to be a greater consensus within the community being disregarded (00:38:21). William Piekney contrasted the current environment with past instances, such as Afghanistan in the 1980s and the first Gulf War, where there was greater agreement between intelligence findings and policy objectives (00:40:49).
Tulsi Gabbard's Role and Potential Influence at ODNI Brett Forrest from the Wall Street Journal inquired about Tulsi Gabbard's intentions and ability to increase influence at ODNI, particularly regarding the NIC and PDB. Larry Pfeiffer explained the historical rationale for keeping the NIC and PDB at CIA headquarters for logistical and geographic reasons, expressing concern that moving them would complicate the DNI's work (00:46:25). Larry Pfeiffer speculated that Gabbard's actions might be for appearance's sake, part of a bureaucratic dynamic, or an attempt to strengthen the case for the DNI's continued existence (00:49:09). Russ Travers supported the view that the CIA remains the central analytic force and that moving the NIC and PDB could be problematic without a stronger legislative mandate for the DNI (00:50:49).
Technological Monitoring and Surveillance of Analysts AJ Vicens from Reuters asked about potential increases in technological monitoring of analysts who might consider raising concerns. Russ Travers noted that intelligence community systems have always been subject to monitoring, particularly after events like WikiLeaks (00:52:04). Larry Pfeiffer stated that current individuals are more worried about monitoring than in the past, and while the concept of monitoring isn't new, advancements in AI and large language models create greater potential for it, leading to fear among analysts about communication within their agencies (00:53:20). William Piekney emphasized the chilling effect of the fear of retribution, including potential DOJ charges, on both current and former officials considering speaking out (00:54:49). Steven Cash added that even expressing dissenting views internally via email now seems fraught with risk, hindering the internal dialogue crucial for the intelligence community's function (00:56:08).
Impact of Politicization on Operational Activities and Counterintelligence Daniel Okay asked about the impact of politicization on day-to-day operational activities and counterintelligence, as well as the IC's ability to function competently (00:58:36). William Piekney offered the perspective that CIA's overseas operational activities are likely to continue, but the broader chilling effects and fear of prosecution could impede the overall effectiveness and willingness of personnel to take risks or challenge assumptions (00:59:48).
Information Sharing and Operational Activity William Piekney discussed that sensitive information in the past had limited distribution. While acknowledging a change in administration and potential impacts overseas, William Piekney stated that the current situation does not seem to have affected the actual level of operational activity (00:59:48).
Prioritization of Intelligence Collection Larry Pfeiffer raised a concern about prioritization rather than politicization of intelligence. Larry Pfeiffer mentioned reports of NSA and Cyber Command being told to stand down on cyber operations against Russia and a reorientation of collection towards Latin America (00:59:48). Larry Pfeiffer worried about potential loss of continuity on important targets due to political prioritization (01:01:24).
Meeting Conclusion and Follow-up Steven Cash proposed ending the discussion and offered to arrange follow-ups for any further questions. Steven Cash thanked everyone for attending and the panelists for participating, mentioning that a transcript and video will be available. Larry Pfeiffer thanked them for hosting the panel (01:01:24).