Small, scattered, and secret reliefs in the national security community
They may be temporary, but there are quiet sighs in the nation's capital.
Amid the Trump administration’s cuts to personnel and programs, I’m seeing a quiet little trend. This is anecdotal and I’m not sure how long it will hold, as a new memo lays the groundwork for more firings.
But for now, for the national security professionals who haven’t been hit so hard, there is a quiet game being played. Given the sensitivities of this matter, I am not quoting much here, but I will share a few examples of what I mean.
In the shadow of DOGE’s demolition of USAID and firings at other agencies, I learned this week that so far just 18 people have been cut across the entire State Department. Who were they? According to a message that went out senior leaders, they were personnel who had exhibited poor performance or misconduct. Officials are not coming out and sharing this number because, well, they don’t want more people to be cut. They are also taking up some USAID programs that they see as important to continue.
Remember the letter from 51 former intelligence officers who warned, weeks before the 2020 election, that Hunter Biden’s laptop and emails could be a Russian influence operation? Time revealed that their suspicions were ultimately incorrect and President Donald Trump accused them of trying to influence the election, which they deny. Days after returning to the White House, Trump signed an executive order to revoke their security clearances. And yet, some didn’t have security clearances anymore anyway. To be fair, some signatories still did and may take a financial hit. But I’m told that the punishment could have been much worse.
At the CIA, as many as 51 intelligence officers are slated to be fired for working on DEI issues, after a federal district judge decided that CIA Director John Ratcliffe could axe any personnel without courts reviewing the cases. That’s because in the intelligence community, officers are subject to Section 3036(e)(1), which is different than the rest of the government. It gives the CIA director the statutory authority to terminate any agency worker whenever he or she “deems the termination of employment of such officer or employee necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States.”
One former intelligence lawyer told me, “This is very sad and I hope counsel appeals, but even that will be tough to win.”
National security attorney Kevin Carroll, who is representing 19 of these CIA officers on the chopping block, tells me he remains optimistic. “We respect the decision of the court and we hope the CIA takes the judge’s strong suggestion from the bench that [Ratcliffe] lets these officers apply for other jobs in the intelligence community,” he told me. “If he doesn’t do that, we may be right back in court.” Expect more on this story from me in the coming days.
Potential agency firings aside, as of now, a hiring freeze from a few weeks ago lasted only a handful of days — even as the CIA sent an unclassified list of new hires to the White House in an email. I also know of young people who are interested in applying for jobs at the CIA. They are not deterred.
Yes, Trump’s skeptics and critics in the intelligence community remain worried. I’m told that at the CIA, people in wheelchairs and with vision problems are fearful that if their accommodations break down, they could be vulnerable to losing their jobs. At the State Department, senior officials who could be categorized as “DEI hires” are turning down speaking opportunities out of concern that it could draw unwanted attention and potential firing, regardless of the nature of their remarks.
But a de facto, symbiotic relationship has formed: Trump takes action in the national security community to ease his personal grievances, to please his base, and to fulfill his vision for the country. Some actions are being fought in the courts. But for the mild cuts and reprisals, nobody wants to vocalize that it isn’t that bad. One is about saving face, the other about self-preservation.
A new sort of self-censorship in 2025.