Trump's assault on the intelligence and national security establishment has weakened America's ability to make sound decisions. The war with Iran is exposing the cost. Congress needs to wake up.
Trump’s assault on the intelligence and national security establishment has weakened America’s ability to make sound decisions. The war with Iran is exposing the cost. Congress needs to wake up.
Over the course of my career, I came to think of intelligence as the government’s sensory system: detecting threats, recognizing patterns, and learning from experience. And learned that intelligence is only useful when policymakers are willing to listen, question assumptions, and think seriously about the consequences of their decisions. Expertise cannot prevent every mistake. It can, however, improve the odds of getting difficult decisions right.
Prior to joining the CIA, I took part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq with the U.S. Marine Corps and witnessed the cost of war on the ground. I subsequently joined the CIA, assigned to the Iraq account, working with colleagues to analyze an insurgency, civil war, U.S. military surge, progress in achieving security, and, later, a terrorist revival as ISIS swept through the region.
Both experiences instilled in me that sound judgment matters, from the White House to the corporal on the battlefield, and that knowledge and expertise improve the odds of getting difficult decisions right. But institutional knowledge, deep expertise, and the managerial acumen necessary to bring them together do not emerge spontaneously. They must be constantly cultivated.
I saw examples of this, large and small, time and again. My CIA/IRAQ team and countless colleagues across the intelligence, diplomatic community, and military took a bad situation and did what we could to make it better. In my office, senior analysts who had worked the Latin American insurgencies of the Cold War tutored junior analysts on lessons learned. Others who had worked on the civil war in the former Yugoslavia offered insights into building an order of battle and understanding the enemy’s behavior over time. Managers encouraged their teams to think creatively and brought in outside expertise to ensure that our insular environment did not become a closed feedback loop. In sum, what I witnessed at this time was decades of institutional knowledge and dedicated professionals brought together around a common mission.
Discrediting and Degrading the National Security Establishment
For years, Donald Trump has branded America’s national security establishment, especially the intelligence and diplomatic corps, as the shadowy core of a treasonous deep state. This was not simply a populist national betrayal myth that played well to the political base. It also served to discredit officials who had legally investigated or challenged the president’s conduct: e.g., his first campaign’s contacts with individuals linked to Russian intelligence services; his administration’s unlawful withholding of congressionally appropriated military assistance to Ukraine; and his attempt to overturn the results of a free and fair presidential election that he had lost.
In his second term, Trump forced out those intelligence officers, whom he labeled as “the fraudsters, liars, cheaters, globalists, and deep state bureaucrats. Intelligence Community (IC). Analysts were fired for producing assessments at odds with the White House’s political agenda, while senior leadership under his sway betrayed the very principles of analytic integrity they had been entrusted to uphold by advancing politically motivated accusations against their predecessors.
At the State Department, career diplomats were sidelined in favor of the president’s family members and longtime business associates. The National Security Council was downsized and marginalized. The military saw its longstanding tradition of political nonpartisanship eroded by partisan political events at military installations, the deployment of troops into American cities in support of domestic law-enforcement operations, and the purging of senior military commanders and legal advisers.
The Consequences: Questionable Decisions on Iran
The U.S. is again at war in the Middle East, but this time with a degraded national security apparatus and little inclination to work with the national security apparatus that we still have. But as Trump’s questionable decisions leading up to and during the war illustrate, perhaps he could use a little more counsel from the subject matter experts within the government that he disparages.
Before the war, advisers warned him about three major risks: a prolonged conflict with potentially devastating regional consequences; Iran’s ability to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz; and the depletion of critical U.S. munitions, particularly missile interceptors. Trump ignored the warnings, promising a quick and easy war.
As the war progressed, the administration seemed to lack a sound strategy and appeared to be caught off guard as the conflict broadened and escalated. Rationales for the war shifted since the administration was unable to explain how Iran posed an immediate threat to the United States, especially given Trump’s previous assurances that Tehran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated” in June 2025.
Tactics shifted. When the initial U.S.-Israeli decapitation strike failed to collapse the regime, the administration wagered that bombing and bombing alone would bring the Iranian regime to the negotiating table. As that failed, the administration negotiated with an emboldened adversary, periodically returning to airstrikes. When this failed, it attempted more airstrikes. Finally, with stockpiles of critical munitions under pressure, the administration suspended strikes on Iranian territory and shifted its emphasis toward economic pressure alone.
As Iran moved to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz early in the conflict, the administration seemed to be taken aback. As the economic fallout from the Strait’s disruption became increasingly apparent, Trump insisted that the Iranians were on the cusp of “making a deal,” a claim he’s made repeatedly over the course of eight months of conflict even as Tehran remained defiant.
Congress must play its role
In an increasingly dangerous and unpredictable world, we need a well-staffed, well-functioning, politically independent national security establishment more than ever and leaders who understand that, rather than partisan or personal loyalty, professional expertise and sound judgment should be paramount in guiding our national security decisions. Over the past too few years, we have been bereft of such leadership from the executive branch or the majority Congress.
And it appears that, despite the recent message sent by the American people, the White House has no intention of changing its ways. The new Congress, however, has the opportunity, and a duty, to make a difference through its oversight of what has increasingly become a politicized and marginalized national security establishment under this presidency.
Press reporting today indicates this new Congress intends to do their duty.
In the meantime, some dedicated, energetic public servants with deep expertise remain on watch throughout the government. No doubt some are working late nights and weekends on the current conflict, wondering if it’s all worth it, as I once did. I would encourage them to hang in there. Your work is important. It matters. And hopefully, with this new infusion of new leadership in Washington, we can get back to a place where you are valued and utilized rather than vilified.
All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the US Government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US Government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.
Shawn Howard is a former CIA analyst who spent more than twenty years focusing on the Middle East and counterterrorism. Prior to joining the CIA, he served in the U.S. Marine Corps and deployed with the 1st Marine Division during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He is the founder of American Vets in Defense of Democracy. He is a member of The Steady State.
Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.