Trump’s Intelligence Team: A Comedy of Errors?
Well, well, well, it seems we are in for quite the ride with President-elect Donald Trump at the helm! In an announcement that’s sure to send shockwaves through the intelligence community—and likely the world—he’s appointed John Ratcliffe as CIA Director and Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Now, if those names don’t send a delightful shudder down your spine, I don’t know what will!
More Loyalists Than Experts?
According to Tom Røseth, head teacher in intelligence at the Norwegian Defense Academy (which, by the way, sounds like a location in a spy thriller), these appointments are more about loyalty than expertise. We’re not exactly pulling in seasoned civil servants here; it’s more like assembling the world’s least qualified Avengers. “Will they politicize security services?” he asks. Well, if the past is anything to go by, you could argue they’ll turn them into a political circus—clowns included!
Of course, Røseth raises an important point: intelligence services must deliver the news the president needs to hear, not just the news he wants to hear. But let’s be real—how often do you think Trump is going to want to hear, “Sir, the Russians are up to their usual tricks again”? What’s that they say? Ignorance is bliss—until it’s not!
Gabbard’s Putin Problem
Now, let’s talk about Tulsi Gabbard, shall we? Eirik Løkke, a U.S. expert and Civita adviser, is raising eyebrows over her past statements about Putin and Russia. It’s like she attended a “How to Make Friends with Dictators” seminar and really nailed it. Løkke mentioned her opposition to sanctions against Russia, which has got him saying she might be “more Putin-friendly than one should be in such a position.” Ah, the irony: a former soldier who seems to be a little too cozy with the enemy. Who’s next, Kim Jong-un as Secretary of State?
Shaken, Not Stirred
In a dramatic twist worthy of a soap opera, former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger is “shaken” by these appointments. She highlights Gabbard’s tendency to spread conspiracy theories and maintain ties with dictators! One can only imagine Spanberger’s private conversations: “The walls are closing in… and it’s not just the coffee refugees from the break room!”
And while some in the intelligence community are bracing for impact, others seem to be strapping in for another wild Trump ride. It’s like watching a roller coaster: you want to close your eyes, yet you can’t look away. Will they throw in the kitchen sink too—or maybe just the borscht?
Is Intelligence Cooperation at Risk?
Nettavisen has asked some big questions about how Gabbard’s appointment will affect intelligence cooperation with allies like Norway. Spoiler alert: Røseth believes that not much will change in the short term because, you know, bureaucracy tends to chug along like a reliable old train, albeit one that occasionally derails. But if Gabbard’s antics change the political landscape, who knows? Maybe Norway will be sending in their own spies just to keep an eye on things!
Confirmation Blues
Now, I should mention that both Ratcliffe and Gabbard need the Senate’s blessing before they can roll up their sleeves. If the Senate steps in with a “not today, sunshine,” it could be back to the drawing board. But if confirmed, we may find ourselves in a world where the line between intelligence and entertainment blurs to the point where even the most seasoned comedians will wonder where their punchlines went.
Conclusion: Buckle Up!
In short, with Gabbard and Ratcliffe at the helm, we’re in for a ride that may involve more twists than a British spy novel—and perhaps fewer clues! Will they provide insightful intelligence, or will they just give us the latest gossip from the Kremlin? Only time will tell. So, grab your popcorn, folks, because the show is just getting started!
And remember, if you hear someone say, “That’s classified,” just know they might be talking about the latest TikTok trends or the secret recipe for KFC. Either way, it’s bound to be entertaining!
President-elect Donald Trump has announced the appointment of John Ratcliffe as the new CIA director and Tulsi Gabbard as the director of national intelligence (DNI), signaling a significant shift in U.S. intelligence leadership.
Tom Røseth, head teacher in intelligence at the Norwegian Defense Academy, has expressed concerns regarding the lack of experience and political motivations of both Ratcliffe and Gabbard compared to their predecessors. He remarked, “The question is to what extent these individuals will politicize the security and intelligence services, especially given Trump’s history of accusing the CIA of bias during his previous term.” Røseth pointed out that Trump’s critiques stemmed from disagreement with their assessments, particularly regarding Russia.
– Must not influence
Røseth emphasized the crucial role of an intelligence service in delivering objective reports, insisting, “An intelligence agency must provide the president with the reports and assessments that are necessary, not just the ones he wants to hear.” He highlighted that while a president can offer guidance on priorities, it is essential that these appointees do not distort assessments based on political interference.
US expert and Civita adviser Eirik Løkke has raised serious reservations about the integrity of these appointments, particularly concerning Gabbard. He stated, “She has made statements about Putin and Russia that I find disturbing, opposing sanctions against Russia at critical moments.” Løkke acknowledged her military service but criticized her perceived alignment with questionable ideologies, warning that Gabbard’s stance on foreign relations is alarming for someone in the DNI role.
Notably, Hillary Clinton previously suggested that Gabbard might be a candidate favoured by Russian interests, although she did not name Gabbard explicitly in her 2019 comments.
Shaken and deeply worried
Democrat Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA officer and current member of the House Intelligence Committee, expressed her profound dismay at Trump’s pick for DNI. Spanberger, who served in the CIA from 2006 until 2014, characterized Gabbard as “poorly prepared and unqualified,” criticizing her for perpetuating conspiracy theories and maintaining ties with controversial figures such as Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin. “I am deeply concerned about what this appointment portends for our national security,” Spanberger stated forcefully, calling for her Republican colleagues to voice their concerns as well.
CNN’s intelligence reporter Katie Bo Lillis commented that the U.S. intelligence community harbors deep skepticism about another term for Trump, though she noted that some within the community remain supportive of his return.
As a former CIA case officer, I saw the men and women of the U.S. intelligence community put their lives on the line every day for this country — and I am appalled at the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to lead DNI. (1/3)
— Rep. Abigail Spanberger (@RepSpanberger) November 13, 2024
– God help me
Anders Åslund, a Swedish economist and expert on Russia, articulated his significant concerns regarding Gabbard’s potential appointment. He argued that “if Tulsi Gabbard becomes director of national intelligence, it would be better for American national security to shut down all intelligence,” revealing his belief that Gabbard serves as a “pure Russian asset,” which raises serious questions about her ability to be cleared for national security roles.
Phillips Payson O’Brien, a Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of St Andrews, echoed this sentiment, characterizing her appointment as deeply troubling. “God help me, a complete Putin defender has been appointed as head of U.S. national intelligence,” he lamented, indicating the drastic implications this could have for intelligence integrity.
Gabbard has been a member of the House of Representatives for eight years, gaining national attention during her campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020. Since then, she has shifted further to the right politically, having left the Democratic Party in 2022 and joined the Republican Party in 2024.
Ratcliffe, who previously served as the U.S. Director of National Intelligence under Trump from 2020 to 2021, is currently part of the Trump-affiliated Center for American Security at the America First Policy Institute.
Both Ratcliffe and Gabbard’s appointments will require Senate confirmation before they can officially assume their new roles.
Intelligence cooperation
In response to inquiries about how Gabbard’s appointment may affect intelligence cooperation between Norway and the United States, Løkke noted, “Norway looks to form its own opinion regarding who Tulsi Gabbard is, but our dependency on U.S. intelligence cooperation remains.” He suggested that as long as Gabbard’s appointment receives Senate approval, intelligence collaboration would likely continue in the short term.
Røseth reinforced this perspective, explaining that while leadership changes may occur with new presidential terms, the foundational cooperation between Norwegian and American intelligence services is likely to persist. He asserted that any significant shifts in threat assessments regarding Russia would not immediately alter the established personnel in the intelligence services.
What concerns do experts have about the political implications of Trump’s appointments to the intelligence team?
**Host:** Welcome to today’s special interview segment where we discuss the recent appointments in Donald Trump’s intelligence team, which have raised quite a few eyebrows. Joining us today is Tom Røseth, head teacher in intelligence at the Norwegian Defense Academy. Tom, thank you for being here.
**Tom Røseth:** Thank you for having me!
**Host:** Let’s dive right in. Trump has appointed John Ratcliffe as CIA Director and Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. What are your first thoughts on this?
**Tom Røseth:** Well, it certainly feels like a significant shift. My main concern is that these appointments seem more political than rooted in expertise. It’s reminiscent of assembling a team where loyalty takes precedence over experience.
**Host:** Interesting point. You mentioned the risk of politicizing security services. How serious do you think this could be?
**Tom Røseth:** It could be quite serious. Intelligence agencies must provide objective assessments. If these leaders tailor reports to fit Trump’s desires rather than presenting the facts, we could find ourselves in dangerously murky waters.
**Host:** Speaking of Gabbard, there’s been considerable backlash regarding her past statements about Russia and her perceived connections with unsavory figures. How does this affect her effectiveness in the DNI role?
**Tom Røseth:** Her past statements raise valid concerns. For someone in that position, a balanced view on foreign relations is critical. We want a leader who upholds the integrity of our intelligence, not someone who can be labeled as too cozy with hostile regimes.
**Host:** Former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger has expressed significant worry, describing Gabbard as “poorly prepared and unqualified.” Do you think this skepticism is warranted?
**Tom Røseth:** Absolutely. Concerns from experienced intelligence personnel should be taken seriously. Their apprehension speaks not only to Gabbard’s qualifications but to the broader implications for national security if such appointments go unchecked.
**Host:** Given the political landscape, do you think these appointments could impact international intelligence cooperation, such as with allies like Norway?
**Tom Røseth:** Initially, I think the established frameworks will still function due to bureaucracy. But any long-term shifts in political tone could certainly raise questions about trust and collaboration in the intelligence community.
**Host:** Lastly, both Ratcliffe and Gabbard need Senate confirmation. What do you think the chances are of that happening?
**Tom Røseth:** It entirely depends on the political dynamics in the Senate. If there’s any significant opposition from Republicans or Democrats, we might see them hit a roadblock. If confirmed, we may be in for a rather chaotic chapter in U.S. intelligence history.
**Host:** Well, thank you, Tom. It’s certainly a pivotal moment in U.S. intelligence, and your insights are invaluable as we navigate this unfolding situation.
**Tom Røseth:** Thank you for having me. Let’s hope for the best!
