By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard dismissed acting National Intelligence Council Chair Mike Collins and his deputy, Maria Langan-Riekhof, citing their opposition to President Trump. This followed the release of a declassified memo contradicting the administration’s justification for deporting Venezuelan immigrants. The firings, raising concerns among Democrats, prompted accusations that the intelligence community’s analysis is now contingent upon aligning with the President’s political agenda. Gabbard is simultaneously consolidating key intelligence operations, including the President’s Daily Brief, bringing them under more direct ODNI control.
Read the original article here
Tulsi Gabbard’s recent actions regarding the restructuring of President Trump’s daily intelligence briefings are raising serious concerns. The firing of two top intelligence officials, allegedly for their inability to present information in a simplified manner, suggests a concerning prioritization of appeasement over effective intelligence gathering and dissemination.
This decision isn’t just about simplifying complex information; it points to a larger pattern of prioritizing superficial approval over substantive content. The implication that President Trump requires information presented at a fifth-grade reading level, or even more visually, speaks volumes about his capacity to engage with complex issues. This isn’t merely an issue of communication style; it represents a fundamental failure to adequately address the demands of the presidency.
The reported need to include President Trump’s name repeatedly in briefing documents – a demand reportedly made nearly a decade ago and still apparently relevant – demonstrates a staggering level of self-absorption and an inability to process information unless it is directly and constantly reinforced with personal validation. This suggests a deep lack of interest in the substance of the intelligence itself, prioritizing instead a carefully curated narrative designed to reinforce existing beliefs.
Replacing experienced, presumably highly qualified intelligence officials with individuals who will provide only positive reinforcement, and potentially individuals lacking extensive relevant experience, is a reckless decision with potentially catastrophic consequences for national security. Prioritizing loyalty over expertise is not simply a matter of poor management; it creates a situation where accurate assessments and necessary warnings may be suppressed or ignored in favor of a pleasing narrative, a blatant disregard for the well-being of the nation.
This shift in the preparation and delivery of the daily intelligence brief raises further troubling questions. Is the entire process being deliberately diluted to minimize any information that might challenge or contradict Trump’s existing views? Will the replacement personnel lack the necessary qualifications and experience to provide informed and critical assessments of national security threats? Are we on the verge of a situation where the president is completely shielded from inconvenient truths? The answers to these questions are deeply unsettling.
The frequent lack of President Trump’s attendance at briefings further underscores the triviality of the situation. If the president rarely or never engages with the daily briefing, the entire restructuring exercise becomes a charade, an elaborate effort to maintain a veneer of competence while neglecting a fundamental responsibility of the presidency. The implication is that the focus is not on informed decision-making but on the carefully managed perception of informed decision-making.
The apparent move to shift responsibility for briefing preparation to a less specialized department, perhaps even an art department, suggests an approach that prioritizes appearances over substance. This suggests a conscious effort to minimize any critical analysis, ensuring that only information compliant with the president’s existing worldview is presented. Such an approach is disastrous for national security. It is a dangerous move that risks leaving the United States vulnerable.
In conclusion, the reported actions taken by Ms. Gabbard highlight a systemic problem within the administration. The dismissal of experienced professionals, the simplification of crucial intelligence information to an almost cartoonish level, and the lack of presidential engagement suggest a complete disregard for the requirements of the office of the president and the welfare of the country. This creates a dangerous precedent, placing national security at significant risk, and warrants thorough investigation and accountability. The prioritization of personal affirmation over objective analysis is a recipe for disaster. The potential consequences of such a reckless approach are too significant to ignore.