The Editors, Bloomberg Opinion
As he assembles his team for a second term, President-elect Donald Trump
is entitled to some latitude, even for his more unconventional picks.
Yet not all executive-branch positions are created equal. Senate
Republicans should be willing to draw a line when it comes to national
security.
Of particular concern are the nation’s intelligence services, which
Trump has proposed putting in the hands of Kash Patel (as Federal Bureau
of Investigation director), John Ratcliffe (to head the Central
Intelligence Agency) and Tulsi Gabbard (director of national
intelligence).
The three have varying degrees of qualification for their posts.
Ratcliffe, a former congressman and national intelligence director in
Trump’s first term, has some experience in the field. After working as a
junior federal prosecutor, Patel filled counterterrorism roles on
Trump’s National Security Council. Gabbard served on the House Armed
Services and Foreign Affairs committees while in Congress and is a
lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.
Prudent reforms may indeed be warranted at the agencies they’re being
asked to shake up. Overzealous FBI investigators did cut corners while
looking into Russia’s backing of Trump during the 2016 election. Bloat
and bureaucracy are common problems across federal agencies.
Whistleblowers could use stronger protections, as could the targets of
federal surveillance. Even some radical ideas — such as creating a new
domestic intelligence agency and focusing the FBI solely on law
enforcement — may merit a broader discussion.
None of that, however, means these agencies have gone “rogue,” as Trump
has argued ever since they began looking into his alleged Russian ties.
Inspector-general reports have found no evidence that investigations
into the president-elect or his supporters have been politically
motivated.
Indeed, many of the loudest complaints have been directed at public
statements by retired officials, which is a separate issue. The vast
majority of intelligence officials are dedicated public servants focused
on a challenging task that is only getting harder as threats
proliferate.
If Trump’s priority was to improve U.S. intelligence gathering and
analysis, he could’ve chosen any number of change-minded
national-security figures to helm these agencies. Plenty of competent
outsiders might also have been appointed to good effect.
By contrast, Patel and Gabbard stand out mostly for their fealty to the
incoming president. The former in particular appears to have been
elevated rapidly and far above his qualifications during Trump’s first
term by casting himself as an administration enforcer.
More experienced senior officials refused to work with him. Former
Defense Secretary Mark Esper has accused him of cavalierly endangering
the lives of U.S. commandos during an operation. (The less said about
his children’s books, starring a wizard named Kash the Distinguished
Discoverer, the better.)
The risks of politicizing intelligence shouldn’t be taken lightly. Loose
talk — not uncommon in Trump’s orbit — can endanger sources and methods.
Gabbard’s mouthing of Russian propaganda and her 2017 meeting with
Syrian dictator Bashar Assad may make U.S. allies think twice about
sharing secrets with Washington.
Patel’s proposed purge of so-called deep-state gangsters at the FBI
threatens to demoralize and distract agents who should be focused on
terrorist plots, Chinese hacking campaigns and official grift.
Worst of all, manipulating intelligence to suit Trump’s fixations could
lead to dangerously misguided policy decisions just as tensions with
China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are running high.
While a president deserves a cabinet he trusts, the Senate has been
given confirmation power for a reason. Appointing unqualified eccentrics
to such crucial positions would be hugely irresponsible, not least if
distorted intelligence contributes to a foreign-policy crisis under
Trump. America’s intelligence agencies deserve better — and national
security demands it.
_____
The Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of
national and global affairs.
_____
©2024 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com/opinion. Distributed by
Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
