Trump's war on US spy agencies has historical precedenthttps://en.majalla.com/node/324977/documents-memoirs/trumps-war-us-spy-agencies-has-historical-precedent
The Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, is wielding a scythe across the American state. At the behest of its master, Elon Musk, DOGE has sliced widely into several agencies, most spectacularly the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Such cuts, particularly to American “soft power” capabilities, are entirely predictable, given the scepticism with which many on the American right greet the entire concept.
Less expected have been the reductions to agencies at the heart of expressions of American hard power externally, including intelligence and the military. The Pentagon, for example, is cutting up to 60,000 civilian employees as part of the bloodletting. Then there is the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), often referred to as the Agency, which appears to be a prime target for change by Trump and his acolytes, facing the largest cull of its personnel in nearly half a century.
Part of the justification for the targeting seems to be that the CIA is on an institutional “enemies list,” groups that Trump perceives have in some way wronged him in the past. Now, his revenge against what some refer to as the American “deep state” has arrived. Ironically, in the past, the greatest promotion of the concept of the deep state and attacks upon it came from those on the political left. Now, especially since Trump’s first term in office, it is the American right that obsesses over the machinations—both real and imagined— of such institutions.
Regardless of the validity of the notion of a powerful deep state secretly operating outside of democratic oversight and accountability while manipulating events inside and outside the United States, there is no doubt about the clout of the United States Intelligence Community (IC).
The IC comprises 18 agencies with an estimated collective budget of $100bn in 2023. To compare, the combined intelligence budget for America’s long-term “Five Eyes” intelligence allies comprising the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand is about $5.6bn.
The disastrous 1961 Bay of Pigs attempted invasion of Cuba led John F. Kennedy to exert additional executive control over CIA covert operations
Despite that fiscal dominance, there have been periods of retrenchment within the American intelligence community, particularly in relation to the CIA. In that respect, the new Trump administration's targeting of America's main foreign intelligence agency is not without historical precedent, even as it carries out other policies and practices that arguably break with historical patterns since World War II.
Three broad categories explain periods of CIA retreat: international events, technological change, and domestic political considerations.
International events
There are various examples of CIA curtailment because of international events. The disastrous 1961 Bay of Pigs attempted invasion of Cuba by anti-Castro exiles that the CIA organised led to the departure of several senior Agency leaders, including its long-time Director, Allen Dulles. It also led the John F. Kennedy presidential administration to exert additional executive control over CIA covert operations, puncturing a myth that would emerge in the 1970s of the CIA as a "rogue elephant" operating outside of the political control of the American executive branch.
More significantly for the CIA, given it was a product of the Cold War, was the end of the conflict, marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991. Western triumphalism led to questions about the continued necessity of a substantial American intelligence capability, and the CIA found its existence under some question as it searched for a new role in a new post-Cold War era.
Budgetary and personnel cuts to the Agency followed in the early 1990s, and morale plummeted. The CIA survived, of course, and found itself transformed because of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when it became a leading soldier in the George W. Bush administration's War on Terror.
US President George W. Bush delivers an address at the Louisville Convention Center 11 January 2006 in Louisville, Kentucky. Bush spoke about the US war in Iraq.
Technological change
The second category that has fuelled historic retrenchment for the CIA relates to technological change. A tension between intelligence derived through humans, such as spies and informants, versus that obtained via technology, such as satellite imagery and communications intercepts, has long existed in American intelligence.
With the increasing prevalence of artificial intelligence, technological change might be a harbinger of future cuts to the CIA or, at least, a justification for doing so. Again, however, there is a past precedent.
That previous parallel dates from between 1977 and 1981 and the Jimmy Carter administration. In an era of revelations around CIA operations gone awry, including spying on Americans and efforts to assassinate foreign leaders, most famously Fidel Castro, there was a backlash against all types of CIA activities. Carter appointed Admiral Stansfield Turner as CIA Director with a mandate to bring major change to the spy institution.
Technology seemed to offer a more ethical approach to intelligence collection for the United States, and a budgetary axe fell upon the CIA. Turner pushed out experienced CIA personnel by the hundreds, especially on the operational side of the Agency. In the aftermath of 9/11, some would argue that Turner's cuts weakened the ability of American intelligence to generate detailed insights into Al-Qaeda and the threat it posed.
Domestic reasons
Finally, the CIA has experienced cuts and curtailment for domestic political reasons, despite the Agency being focused on operations outside the United States. Trump's cuts fit squarely within this category and provide a clear link between his administration and one of his more notorious Republican presidential predecessors, namely Richard Nixon.
Nixon long held a grievance against the CIA that parallels the degree of Trump's enmity. From the West Coast and educated at modest Whittier College, the Californian resented the Agency, which he viewed as dominated by the Eastern establishment, with graduates from elite Ivy League universities like Harvard and Yale. He famously referred to CIA personnel as the "clowns … out there at Langley" and believed the Agency contributed to his loss in the 1960 presidential election by aiding his Democratic opponent, John F. Kennedy.
Nixon's rage at the Agency and its leadership only grew in the aftermath of the discovery of the Watergate break-in against the Democratic Party carried out by personnel connected to Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign.
Six former CIA directors testify in Congress in 1995. Richard Helms, William Colby, James Schlesinger, William Webster, Stansfield Turner, and James Woolsey.
To halt the investigation into Watergate, Nixon asked then-CIA Director Richard Helms to derail the police investigation by telling the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the break-in was a CIA operation; sensing the danger to the CIA of being associated with the growing scandal, Helms refused.
Winning re-election in November 1972, Nixon soon pursued his revenge on the CIA. He fired Helms and appointed a hatchet man, James R. Schlesinger, as Director with a mandate to go after the Agency. In the job for only six months, Schlesinger slashed 7% of the CIA's workforce while attempting to exert greater presidential control over the spies.
Potential warning
The Schlesinger encounter with the CIA serves as a potential warning to Trump and his similar efforts to reduce the size of the United States' most famous spy institution while trying to assert greater political control over it. During his brief and highly unpopular tenure, Schlesinger, fearing the emergence of scandals, asked the CIA to compile a list of past activities that might potentially cause future political problems if they were to be revealed.
This approach became a self-fulfilling prophecy in 1974, when the list was leaked to the New York Times, generating widespread outrage at CIA activities while causing considerable political damage to Gerald Ford, Nixon's successor as president.
Trump can batter his own spy agencies and pursue a vendetta against them, but they are well-equipped to retaliate against their political masters.
