In his first weeks in office, President Donald Trump has taken a series of actions that undermine the professionalism and effectiveness of America’s national security workforce. Most recently, the administration removed three of the nation’s most senior military officers for vague reasons tied more to political ideology than warfighting effectiveness. The president has also removed security details from former government officials, revoked dozens of security clearances on flimsy grounds, evicted a four-star admiral from her home before she could gather her belongings, removed a four-star general’s portrait from the Pentagon and began efforts to collect the names of FBI employees who worked on investigations the president found offensive. These actions targeted and mistreated individuals. They also made the nation less safe by laying the foundation for a culture of fear in the national security workforce. These early actions are the first steps toward recreating the worst parts of security services found elsewhere in the world. In those services, candor is sacrificed for platitude and honesty is replaced by careful calculations intended to avoid upsetting political leaders.
Trump’s decision to suspend the security details of former national security officials will be noted by the national security officials occupying key posts today. His decision forces these officials to consider the personal hazards they and their families may face if they fall from the good graces of the president. By showing a willingness to risk the lives of former officials, the president is encouraging those who are currently serving to calibrate their actions to avoid similar circumstances. This will discourage officials from advocating bold actions, like the strike that targeted Iranian General Qassim Soleimani in Baghdad in 2020, when those officials believe their actions might incur retaliation from foreign nations. The senior officials who were involved in planning the strike on Soleimani knew Iran could threaten their well-being but had faith their country would offer protection. It turns out their faith was wrong.
The removal of security details places the lives of former American officials at risk but also undermines the sense of well-being that national security officials need to operate at their best. The social media attacks on former officials, and seemingly trivial actions like the removal of Gen. Mark Milley’s portrait from the Pentagon, are reminders to national security officials about what happens if they upset the president. Subjected to social media assaults, targeted by capable foreign actors and fearful of being ostracized and forgotten by the organizations in which they served, officials will hesitate before participating in bold actions or offering controversial advice. This will dampen America’s initiative and destroy the culture of varied opinions, lively debate and healthy dissent that facilitates the best national security outcomes.
The president’s actions will also undermine the sense of camaraderie commonly found in agencies that operate in the national security space. Early efforts by the Trump administration to encourage federal workers to report colleagues who engage in banned activities surrounding DEI look a lot like a trial for a more pervasive system of monitoring and reporting ideological dissent. Given what we’ve already seen from the administration, it’s not hard to imagine FBI agents being encouraged to report fellow agents who express a negative opinion of Jan. 6 rioters, or military officers being encouraged to report fellow officers who make statements alluding to the value of international alliances. Such a system turns colleagues against each other by sowing distrust and discourages open dialogue and collaboration. It’s reminiscent of the Soviet system where KGB officers were expected to spy on one another, part of a culture of fear that reduced Soviet effectiveness and helped the United States win the Cold War.
Trump’s post-presidency is protected by the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity and by the vigilance of the Secret Service. Those who work in his administration may find themselves less well protected at the end of their terms. National security officials must now consider the possibility of being left on their own to face the threat of retaliation from foreign countries. They may hesitate to offer dissenting opinions or candid advice, especially if they believe the advice might upset the fragile sensibilities of the president. Given a choice between angering the president by advocating for a dissenting position or maintaining a positive relationship by supporting whatever position seems popular at the time, national security officials may choose the meeker path once they realize their lives, dignity and livelihoods are on the line.
America’s national security enterprise has failed the nation from time to time, but far more often our military and national security agencies have shielded the country from a hostile world. They have, in fact, helped create the international conditions that allowed our nation to thrive. This was possible because merit was rewarded and candor was expected. Creating a national security culture that encourages unease among professionals by canceling security details, removing official portraits, revoking security clearances, firing senior military officers and encouraging colleagues to report on one another is anathema to the national security professionalism that has made the United States the most powerful country in the world. These actions create a culture of conformity and fear that resembles the security services of the same dictatorships America has always opposed. This is unfortunate for the men and women sworn to protect our nation, and a tragedy for the American people who rely on their effectiveness.
Colin Pascal is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Military Intelligence officer. He is a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. and lives in Annapolis.