• Politics
• United States

July 3, 2025, 1:13 PM View Comments ()

American presidents have long criticized intelligence assessments. Lyndon B. Johnson derided pessimistic analysis of the Vietnam War. Bill Clinton challenged reports that Iraq wanted to rebuild weapons of mass destruction. And Barack Obama dinged the intelligence community for failing to connect the dots after the failed 2009 Christmas Day bombing. These criticisms were usually shared privately or in the form of constructive feedback.

But President Donald Trump and his administration’s pattern of publicly denigrating and undermining intelligence assessments is different, deeply disturbing, and portends profound consequences for national security. The manner and tone by which the commander in chief communicates feedback to intelligence professionals matter. Constructive criticism—asking hard questions, directing after-action reviews—can strengthen analysis and result in more useful insights for policymakers. By contrast, disparaging comments or insults inhibit honest analysis, undermine morale, and cause lasting damage to the intelligence community.

The last month has laid bare the Trump administration’s disdain for intelligence that contradicts its policy preferences. Last week, following the leak of a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report that contravened the president’s claim that U.S. strikes has “obliterated” Iranian nuclear facilities, the White House press secretary said the report was “flat-out wrong” and “a clear attempt to demean” the president.

The DIA report may turn out to be incomplete—preliminary reports usually are. A subsequent statement from the CIA director said the strikes had “severely damaged” Iran’s nuclear program. I hope that’s the case. Nevertheless, publicly smearing intelligence reports is neither an effective nor productive way to share feedback and inspire more rigorous analysis.

Even before the strikes on Iran, Trump dismissed the intelligence community’s view that Iran as of March 2025 was not building a nuclear weapon. He went so far as to say his director of national intelligence was wrong, adding, “I don’t care what she said.”

And in May, the top two officials from the National Intelligence Council (NIC) were fired after an NIC assessment undercut the administration’s claim that the Venezuelan government was directing the activities of the criminal gang Tren de Aragua. The administration has relied on this assertion to invoke the Alien Enemies Act and deport undocumented immigrants. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said they were fired because “they politicized intelligence,” without providing any evidence.

These broadsides fit a pattern of Trump’s actions during his first term. Notably, he rejected intelligence conclusions that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to aid his campaign. And in 2019, he attacked his intelligence chiefs for testifying that Iran was complying with the nuclear deal and that North Korea would not abandon nuclear weapons.

Disparaging intelligence reports that are inconvenient may be politically expedient in the short run, but the longer-term implications are dangerous for national security. Here’s why.

First, castigating intelligence has a chilling effect on presenting objective, fact-based analysis—an essential input to national security decisions. It can make analysts reluctant to share conclusions that are at odds with administration policy for fear of retribution or baseless political attacks, including on the officers themselves. Such concerns are not hypothetical; recently, the identities of disgraced analysts have been leaked and administration supporters have vilified them online. Moreover, intense pressure, particularly from the White House, on intelligence assessments can weaken analytic tradecraft, with potentially disastrous consequences—as was the case with prewar assessments of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in 2002.

Worse, this chilling effect reduces the amount and quality of analysis available to the president and his advisors to defend against threats or seize opportunities. Analysts become overly cautious, fearful of warning about emerging dangers from nations like Russia if they perceive such views will trigger a harsh reaction from the president. This leaves the president and his team potentially exposed and unprepared to respond should those threats come to pass.

Second, dismissing intelligence reports as inaccurate or “wrong” undermines the renewed confidence in U.S. intelligence by our foreign allies and partners—trust restored following accurate U.S. warnings about Russia’s plans to further invade Ukraine in 2022. When an American president casts doubt on his own intelligence agencies, it devalues U.S. intelligence in the eyes of the world and weakens the influence of intelligence as a tool of diplomacy.

Finally, sustained attacks on analysis will further harm workforce morale at a time when the efforts to drastically shrink the intelligence community have already created a climate of fear and intimidation. Denigrating the hard work of intelligence officers will only accelerate the departure of highly experienced, apolitical public servants whose work is now more indispensable than ever given the urgent threats we face.

As someone who directed two U.S. intelligence components, I’ve seen the impacts of exceptional analysis and the consequences of flawed or incomplete assessments. Believe me, presidents are wise to challenge analytic judgments and to remain skeptical of intelligence assertions. But constructive, private feedback is far more powerful and effective than public denunciations.

Should public attacks on U.S. intelligence continue, it will be up to current intelligence leaders and Congress to act. Statements from current intelligence chiefs defending their agencies’ analyses and workforce and their commitment to analytic integrity would send a strong signal to career officials. Members of Congress could also show support by praising the professionalism of intelligence officers and by reassuring them of the protections in place for whistleblowers.

This shouldn’t be a political issue. All Americans should care about having the intelligence community provide our president with apolitical analysis of threats to the United States. But the president and members of his team have a vital role to play in upholding the foundational principle of analytic objectivity. Publicly maligning analysis to score political points weakens this principle and will lead to further politicization of intelligence that this administration has claimed to eschew.