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.
Comments
34 responses to “Looking for a Few Good Toadies”
The funny part to me is that the “correct” answer is so obvious. Unqualified – or even politically opposed – people will simply answer the right way and find their way into Trump’s administration because he is so thin-skinned, weak, and easy to manipulate.
So the tactic isn’t even useful for the end it claims to serve.
As Prof. Joyner points out, this is a test of subservience. Trump wants people to grovel to him. He revels in it.
You say that as if there were a difference in Trusk’s minds between “foes” and “people not subservient to me”.
Back in the day, we used to make fun of the Soviet Union for requiring biologists to publicly endorse Lysenkoism and reject Darwinism. How could any world power be so stupid and self-destructive? Well, now we know…
@CSK:
Also a test for dishonesty and absence of principles – as are necessary to meet the objectives of this regime.
The approach to climatology is a bit different, just deny it exists.
We have replaced DEI with Trump subservience. We will find out which approach creates better outcomes.
@Tony W:
And therein, Trump’s sows the seeds of his failure and ultimate defeat. Unfortunately, in a broader sense, his defeat requires this nation to “go through some stuff,” and suffer a different kind of “defeat” —- collateral damage to our stability, values, social fabric, social compact, material costs etc.
Hitler, and now Putin, are autocrats who surrounded themselves with lying “yes-men.” If that be any indication of how suppression of the truth-reality feedback mechanism works out long-term.
@Joe:
Oh, those results are in long ago. Has any Trump appointee ever risen even as high as mediocrity?
I am going to argue that these are not only not mutually exclusive, but they are self-reinforcing insofar as for Trump that’s what loyalty is: subservience to him.
@Joe: It’s the Age of Meritocracy, dontcha know!
@Rob1: I mean, Putin has been in power for over a quarter century. It seems to be working out for him pretty well (although less well for Russia). I am not saying that Trump is going on a Putin-like trajectory, but am suggesting that the yes-man thing can work out pretty well for the guy on top.
@DrDaveT: Well, you know, we are well on our way to having Soviet-style political officers in every department.
@Joe:
We have replaced DEI with DOH! Deny, Obfuscate, Humiliate.
Replaced the Deep State with the Derp State.
@Steven L. Taylor: …Trump is going on a Putin-like trajectory…
One big difference between Trump and Putin is that Putin has a work ethic and if Trump ever had one, it’s been replaced by this scattershot approach to everything, lunging for the next bright shining thing in his immediate vicinity that makes him feel good. He really does believe that he wrote The Art of the Deal all by himself and that it’s absolute fact all the way through. (Of course, the mental deterioration doesn’t help either.)
“Looking for a Few Good Toadies”
I think the Administration will accept Neutral and Evil ones as well.
@Steven L. Taylor: And Hitler’s arc of power was approximately 15 years. But our discussion of his influence tends to focus on the last 7 or 8 years.
Putin’s Russia’s is down and not out, but it’s medium term prospects aren’t looking so great. It’s reputation is in tatters. Their weakness and decrepitude exposed. They’re taking a beating greater than ours in Vietnam. And that’s saying something.
I read a piece about how some Russian elite now worry the future of their country is as a poor satellite of China. Xi would certainly oblige.
@Moosebreath:
I think the great preference will be for those who slobber their absolute devotion to Trump.
@CSK: There’s “merit” in that.
@Rob1:
Russia’s economy is roughly equal to Brazil’s. I’ve long thought Russia is fated to be a satellite of China. That train of thought also leads to the conclusion that if we, western Europe, and our asian allies together couldn’t crush Russia into giving up Ukraine with economic sanctions, we weren’t really trying very hard.
@Rob1:
I never said that Russia was doing well. Putin, however, has lived the life of a wealthy king for decades now, and while it may come to an ignominious end at some point, he, personally, has done quite well.
This is my point.
@Not the IT Dept.: Has Trump’s lack of work ethic and his delusional beliefs in his own output damaged his bottom line?
He keeps making money and he is one of the most powerufl people in the world.
This is bad for all of us, but it has, to this point, been great for DJT and his family.
By now must love this Kabuki. We’re used to it.
We just roll our eyes when Senators like Susan Collins and Joni Ernst casually insult our intelligence and say something like, ‘well, I was assured by Judge Kavanaugh that he respects settled law and stare decisis,’ or ‘well I’ve been assured by Mr. Hegseth that he’s changed his views on women in military service.’
It is and was obvious to most people that most of the current nominees were saying whatever it took to be confirmed. But it’s pretty easy with this Senate, Republicans have the votes and this is about winning, nothing else.
It’s a minor miracle that Matt Gaetz was thrown under the bus – he must be universally disliked for that to have occured. But, no problem here, there’s always someone else …
@Steven L. Taylor:
I agree. Still, recent Presidents have prized loyalty to a degree not previously seen. Bush, Obama, and Biden all wanted people who had been around them for years and put the accomplishment of their goals over ideological/partisan goals. I see this as something different: a willingness to humiliate oneself.
@al Ameda:
This is what Ernst gets for toadying up. A promise: Combat Veteran, Sexual Assault Survivor Senator Backs Hegseth for Defense Secretary…
And this is what we get: Military freezes sexual assault prevention training after Trump executive order on DEI…
@James Joyner:
James, if you ever need a topic for a future post, I for one would love you to expand on this. I don’t necessarily see sentence one leading to sentence two (or that sentence one is necessarily bad or an example of “loyalty”). But before I comment further, I would love to see you unpack this just a little more.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Linking this train of thought to your previous comment, I’d like to point out that, to date, Trump’s success has been underwritten by a number of “gifted” external resources, luck, and hard gaming of the system, but within a relatively “small pond.” And he hasnt always fared well.
Now he’s in a much bigger pond that has to be managed and manipulated. A pond (an ocean) in which there are harder realities, less shelter, bigger stakes, far reaching unintended consequences and costs. And he sits on a big stage (the biggest stage) in a glaring spotlight of his own making, surrounded by a flawed feedback mechanism, also of his own making.
That piece posted on OTB referencing Ezra Klein’s recent commentary got it right. Trump is going to find it harder to hide from the harsh realities of his bad decisions. It got him ejected from the White House last time. This time, if he continues on his current path, MAGA loses devotees and traction. His “reality field distortion” capability isn’t big enough defy gravity, or real cost accounting.
I am not so sure about Trump losing his cult. It looks a lot like he is following the advice set up by Yarvin. Trump is acting like the Chair of the Board. He has hired Musk as his CEO. If things dont work out he can always blame Musk and get a new CEO. Remember, Trump cannot fail, he can only be failed.
Steve
@Eusebio:
The reason this is telling and goes along with the OP is that Republicans outwardly claim to want The Best but all they really want is people who are part of their clique. They really do hate DEI, not because it may result in people without merit getting positions they don’t deserve, but because DEI is the implementation during the LBJ administration of both the Americans With Disability act and the Civil Rights Act. DEI is the only way non-white people and disabled people are actually selected for jobs.. and so ending DEI means that it now cannot be verified that the .gov is in compliance with those acts.
As a fun side benefit for the racists, hostile work environments for those groups are also now not punishable. What’s the apparatus holding the .gov accountable to the Civil Rights Act? What’s the organization to go to for a hostile work environment claim? [Announcer voice: None. Racism in hiring is back now!]
As always, Republicans want “their people” to get all the jobs rather than the ones who are the best.
So with this in mind, everyone facing this should just say they’re A Fan Of Trump and then go about their day as they would anyway.
To wit: Mike Pence was loyal but he had a moral core. Trump recognized loyalty alone doesn’t get the job done.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Rob1 has already commented on this, but I will chime in with my own take. I think that yes, Trump’s laziness and craziness have both hindered him significantly. Given his head start and connections, he should be much wealthier than he is.
Assumes facts not in evidence — Trump goes to extreme lengths to keep anyone from learning exactly what he’s worth.
Yes, but it’s not clear how much of that is his doing, and how much is genuinely powerful people using him as a lever and catalyst. Trump didn’t create the conditions that allowed him to be elected; Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes and their ilk did that. They probably wished they had another St. Ronnie to work with, rather than Trump, but they managed it anyway. Trump didn’t create the conditions that allow the Suborned Court to rubber-stamp his actions; that was Len Leo and the Kochs.
All in all, Trump is very much a personal failure — and I suspect he knows it, and that drives a lot of his behavior.
These guy are the paragons of honestly and integrity.
Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say
Because Law Enforcement never lies
Justice Withdraws Inaccurate ‘Fast And Furious’ Letter It Sent To Congress
@Paul L.:
Well okay then, we’re back to ‘Trump was victimized by the Russia Hoax.’
Except for the well-documented story (aka fact) that Don Junior met with a known Russian Operative at the Trump Tower in Manhattan, except for that and many other instances of Trump’s campaign strategy team (e.g, Manafort) meeting with Russians … except for all of that …
it could be written off as a ‘hoax.’
@al Ameda: @al Ameda:
Funny the known Russian Operative (Natalia Veselnitskaya) that met with Don Jr at the Trump Tower in Manhattan met with the DNC and Fusion GPS before and after that meeting.
Too bad Mueller was too senile to sell the Russia Hoax.
Paul, you have such fun moments ahead of you.
One of the best will be when you learn that “whiteness” is a political construct and therefore “white supremacy” is political correctness with a dessert topping of felony murder.
@Paul L.: When are you gonna get in the Elon groove, man? Hunter Biden is so…..Biden. Nobody cares anymore. Or about Fast and Furious.
It’s all on your guy, now.
@Paul L.:
Yes, too bad Jack Smith wasn’t the Attorney General from the beginning.
Conseravtives were very fortunate that Joe Biden was a moderate institutionalist and not the radical that rightwing radicals portrayed him to be.
Merrick Garland and Robert Meuller were as Brooks Brothers gray flannel suit stodgy honest earnest guys as you can find. It turned out that they just weren’t up to prosecuting the criminal activity of a radical like Trump.