Ellen Nakashima and Warren P. Strobel, reporting for WaPo (“U.S. intelligence, law enforcement candidates face Trump loyalty test“):
Candidates for top national security positions in the Trump administration have faced questions that appear designed to determine whether they have embraced the president’s false claims about the outcome of the 2020 election and its aftermath, according to people familiar with cases of such screening.
The questions asked of several current and former officials up for top intelligence and law enforcement posts revolved around two events that have become President Donald Trump’s litmus test to distinguish friend from foe: the result of the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, according to the people, who, like other interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.
These people said that two individuals, both former officials who were being considered for positions within the intelligence community, were asked to give “yes” or “no” responses to the questions: Was Jan. 6 “an inside job?” And was the 2020 presidential election “stolen?”
These individuals, who did not give the desired straight “yes” answer, were not selected. It is not clear whether there were other factors that contributed to the decision.
The questions were posed in direct interviews conducted by personnel hiring for the new administration.
Political fealty has been a prerequisite for positions at all levels of the new administration, including for current civil servants seeking new assignments. But former national security and other officials said it is especially important for the nation’s security that intelligence professionals be able to give the president accurate information even if it does not align with his policy or political preferences.
“It’s normal for a new administration to ask potential political appointees about their political views to assure that they align with the new administration,” said John Bellinger III, who served as the senior counsel for the White House National Security Council in the George W. Bush administration. “And it’s appropriate for a new administration to ask career officials if they are comfortable carrying out the new administration’s policies. But it’s not appropriate to condition jobs, especially in the intelligence and law enforcement community, on partisan political stances. We want career officials to interpret intelligence and enforce the laws in a neutral way without any partisan preference.”
Separately, at least two individuals in FBI field offices outside Washington, who were being interviewed for senior positions, were asked similar questions, said one U.S. official familiar with the incidents. The questions included: Who were the “real patriots” on January 6? Who won the 2020 election? Who is your “real boss?”
These agents have yet to hear the outcome of their interviews, according to the official.
“It is entirely appropriate that candidates for national security positions in the Trump administration align with President Trump’s agenda to put America First, ” deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement to The Washington Post.
This is, to say the least, problematic.
I think Nakashima and Strobel get it wrong here. This is not a test of “loyalty” designed to “distinguish friend from foe.” Rather, it’s a test of subservience. The questions weed out those who aren’t willing to lie in the interview in order to get the job.
There are almost certainly plenty of Senior Intelligence Service officers and Supervisory Special Agents who are Trump supporters and would work diligently to carry out his agenda. But I doubt a single one of them believes, contrary to all evidence, that the 2020 election was stolen. Much less that January 6 was “an inside job.” They’re highly intelligent people who have advanced to the senior ranks in professions that require keen analytical ability.
If the interviewers were looking for true believers, they would instead ask policy questions to see whether candidates aligned with Trump’s vision for the agency. But they’re asking for direct Yes answers to questions where the answer is No, or at least requires a rather complex answer to get to something other than No. They’re looking for Marco Rubio types who will sacrifice their dignity and integrity to serve Trump.
