Trump to Gut Intelligence Agencies
Thousands of job cuts are envisioned.
WaPo’s Warren P. Strobel (“Trump administration plans major downsizing at U.S. spy agencies“) breaks the news:
The Trump administration is planning significant personnel cuts at the Central Intelligence Agency and other major U.S. spy units, downsizing the government’s most sensitive national security agencies, according to people familiar with the plans.
The administration recently informed lawmakers on Capitol Hill that it intends to reduce the CIA’s workforce by about 1,200 personnel over several years and cut thousands more from other parts of the U.S. intelligence community, including at the National Security Agency, a highly secretive service that specializes in cryptology and global electronic espionage, a person familiar with the matter said. The person, like others interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.
The specifics of the planned cuts have not been previously reported.
The CIA does not publicly disclose the size of its workforce, but it is believed to be about 22,000. It is unclear which parts of the spy agency would be most affected. The downsizing is happening even as CIA Director John Ratcliffe has pledged to put more agency resources on China and on cartels smuggling fentanyl and other synthetic drugs into the United States.
The staff reductions would take place over several years and would be accomplished in part through reduced hiring. No outright firings are envisioned. The goal of a roughly 1,200-person staff reduction includes several hundred individuals who already have opted for early retirement, the person familiar with the matter said.
The downsizing is taking place separately from efforts by the U.S. DOGE Service, led by billionaire Elon Musk, to radically restructure the federal government. Musk met with Ratcliffe in late March for a discussion that included government efficiency measures, but no DOGE teams have been working at the agency’s Langley, Virginia, campus.
“Director Ratcliffe is moving swiftly to ensure the CIA workforce is responsive to the Administration’s national security priorities,” an agency spokesperson said in a statement. “These moves are part of a holistic strategy to infuse the Agency with renewed energy, provide opportunities for rising leaders to emerge, and better position CIA to deliver on its mission.”
Both Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have pledged to streamline their agencies and, at President Donald Trump’s bidding, have eliminated diversity, equity and inclusion programs — firing personnel who worked on those issues. Nineteen employees of the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence sued in federal court to stop their dismissal; a federal judge in late March issued a temporary injunction halting the firings.
Since assuming her post, Gabbard has frequently spoken to conservative media outlets and depicted some U.S. intelligence personnel as part of a “deep state” working to undermine Trump, echoing charges the president has made. As a congresswoman from Hawaii, she sometimes expressed skepticism of U.S. intelligence judgments, including a 2017 assessment that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own citizens in Syria.
Gabbard said at a White House Cabinet meeting on Wednesday that the ODNI is “25 percent smaller and more lean today than when I walked in the door.” She was confirmed to her post on Feb. 12.
[…]
Critics of the planned reductions at the CIA and other agencies said they posed a threat to national security. “These sweeping, reckless cuts of experienced intelligence personnel by the Trump administration will undoubtedly undermine our ability to detect and respond to threats and make America less safe,” said Sen. Mark R. Warner (Virginia), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Current and former U.S. officials also warn of a counterintelligence risk, noting that having thousands of potentially disgruntled intelligence personnel out of work presents a ripe recruiting target for adversary nations’ spy services.
Russia and China have recently directed their intelligence services to ramp up attempts to recruit U.S. national security workers, targeting those who have been fired or feel they could be soon, CNN reported in March, citing U.S. intelligence assessments on the issue.
Last month, the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, a part of the ODNI that coordinates programs to thwart foreign spies, warned that foreign intelligence entities — particularly in China — are targeting current and former U.S. employees online, offering jobs while posing as consulting firms, corporate headhunters and think tanks.
Coming of age during the Reagan administration, I never would have imagined a future in which a Republican President would be openly hostile to America’s intelligence, military, and law enforcement agencies. Then again, I couldn’t have imagined a Republican President cozying up to a Russian regime openly hostile to NATO and which had invaded its neighbors. But here we are.
Cutting DEI programs may well be harmful, but at least it makes for good politics with Trump’s core constituency. But who is it that’s clamoring for deep cuts at the CIA, NSA, and other key intelligence agencies?
While the Trump foreign policy is hard to pin down, the administration apparently still sees China as an adversary. Given that their power and regional aggressiveness is on the upswing, one would think that, if anything, we’d be investing more heavily in intelligence collection and analysis.
Answer: anyone who buys Trump’s BS about “Deep State” nonsense, and a big chunk of the Republican party that thinks government is too big–all government.
Notably, these are the same people who will lose their minds if we experience a terror attack.
IIRC, Bill Clinton’s effort to downsize government made cuts in the intelligence agencies, with greater reliance on signals intel over human-collected. It’s hard to pinpoint the precise intel failures that led to 9/11, but less human intel was part of it. Putin must be absolutely chuffed.
Qui bono? Why it’s Trump’s good friends the Russians. Quel surprise!
I sure hope the DEI cuts eliminate all those fluent foreign language speakers.
@Jen: @Michael Reynolds: I think you may be both right. There are certainly kooks in the administration that would welcome further gutting of the agencies they think comprise some vast conspiracy. But also gutting the intelligence agencies would be part and parcel of some goofball alliance with Russia, especially when the world’s worst deal-maker would be eager to give up concessions before getting anything in return.
The courts can’t move fast enough on furthering the slam-dunk case that the Constitution doesn’t let the executive willy-nilly cut the funding, staffing, and resources of the federal government.
As I say from time to time, think of it in terms of Donald the First, head of the North American Empire, with tall walls. (I’m reasonably sure that’s the picture in his head.) Much less overseas intelligence is required. A much smaller military will suffice.
Putin.
Next question.
@Michael Reynolds:
The rare case in which I can be grammar cop in two languages at once!
It’s “cui bono” and “quelle surprise.”
On a more substantive note, I would keep my eyes out for the creation or elevation of another intelligence agency that can then be staffed by Trump loyalists (i.e., fascists) from the get-go.
Trump is utterly predictable in his implacable war on law enforcement, intelligence, and watchdog organizations. He behavior is exactly what you would expect if these decisions were being made by the criminals and foreign assets these organizations are intended to curb and counter.
Laying off scores of intelligence agency workers is only part of Trump’s dumbing down equation. The other part is his installing loyalist boobs into the same agencies.
I feel like I’ve been saying “Never did I ever imagine Trump would ____________” an inordinate amount of times the last 103 days.
Just a note…comments made on my laptop do not seem to be appearing on my iPhone.
Keeping this site running seems like an un-enviable task.
Kudos to whoever…
@drj
Hmm, no reply button at the moment.
I am not in a position to object to pedantry. For obvious reasons.
Here’s a list of 29 things Trump has done to serve Putin.
Here’s another, earlier list of 37 things Trump did in obedience to Putin.
Given both Trump’s and Tulsi Gabbard’s overt support of Moscow I find it hard to believe this doesn’t have heads exploding on both sides of the aisle. How could you give a bigger gift to Putin than weakening our Intelligence Community. Other than surrendering Crimea to him, I mean.
Which is also their clear intent.
Seriously…WTF IS HAPPENING TO US???
@Daryl: I ran into that this morning – I could see edits to comments on the Chrome profile they were made from, but (I thought) not at other Chrome profiles. I turned out they were just taking really long to appear, did show up eventually.
@Michael Cain:
Less overseas intelligence, and more money to the military?
“ Trump budget proposes $1 trillion for defense”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/02/politics/trump-budget-proposal-defense-spending
And a SecDef who is focused on making war, not peace
“ our core task: WAR-FIGHTING”
https://x.com/PeteHegseth/status/1917203362396639518
I don’t think this ends well.
@DrDaveT: “But who is it that’s clamoring for deep cuts at the CIA, NSA, and other key intelligence agencies?”
Adding on, this is a massive, unprecedented destruction of US state capabilities, in every arena except domestic oppression
Putin has to be overjoyed.
And Xi too, although no Republican would admit it.
A
@restless:
The felon might then want to re-rename the drunk’s domain the War Department.
This notion of a “defense” Department is just some woke, DEI, trans, deep state stuff anyway.
@restless:
Japan, South Korea and the Philippines have no practical choice but to cozy up to Beijing. Beijing is a major trading partner, and a major military power right there in Japan’s back yard – a power which can only be offset by a reliable US alliance. The US is no longer a reliable ally.
So, we’ll build more ships and fewer countries will allow us to dock. More planes and fewer places to base them. The Japanese would be absolute fools to count on us, and if they lose confidence in us, they won’t be allowing us to use their country as an unsinkable aircraft carrier. Which would leave us fighting China from Guam.
But no worries, Trump won’t fight a peer power. Nope, he’ll just build ships and planes with tariffed steel and aluminum, driving up costs on top of the extra cost we’ll pay for having no arms export market. All the ships will be named USS Trump. MAGAts will believe America’s Great Again.
@Joe: They’re not targeting DEI hires, they targeted DEI officers. People who work full time on DEI. They don’t translate anything. Anyway, people with foreign language skills wouldn’t have been solely hired on the basis of their identity.
Another aspect of cutting back intelligence personnel is the chance to outsource gathering and analysis of data to private companies. Interesting article on Palantir, owned by Peter Thiel and Alex Karp at NPR this morning. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/01/nx-s1-5372776/palantir-tech-contracts-trump
Would the USA (and world) be better if the CIA were downsized? Depends on one’s values and how one sees the tradeoffs. The reactions to such a proposal, now and in previous instances, are interesting. Who invokes “threat[s] to national security” and when and why.
Still though, if the CIA were to be downsized, this doesn’t seem like a terrible way to proceed:
This part also caught my eye:
a) If the downsizing is achieved by early retirement and reduced hiring, I’m not sure how that leads to thousands of disgruntled formerly employed personnel. b) The plan is for a reduction of 1,200, so “thousands” doesn’t quite compute. c) Re “ripe recruiting targe”: This is a searing indictment of currently employed intelligence personnel.
***None of the above is a defense of Trump, the administration, etc. Rather, it is my attempt to engage with what I perceive to be a defense of the CIA (and broader intelligence community).
@Jax: It’s easier just to stop trying to imagine where the nadir of Trumpness is. He’s the Marianas Trench of humanity. But given that he worked for/with Vince McMahon during the WWE “Attitude Era,” that’s not even all that surprising, either.
[…]
“Re “ripe recruiting targe”: This is a searing indictment of currently employed intelligence personnel.”
Considering who America elected, it’s not an unreasonable indictment of who Americans are. I’m saddened by what I’ve been watching (for 40 years now), and I don’t believe that our intelligence people are as petty and vindictive as the rest of us seem in aggregate, nor are they disloyal, but the possibility is not beyond the pale, sad to say.
@Mimai:
Except that’s not how it’s going to happen. Trump’s henchmen will weed out anyone they think is disloyal. And by disloyal they’ll mean anyone who tells Trump something he doesn’t want to hear. Or anyone who raises doubts about cryptocurrency’s uses. Or anyone who points out Russian election interference.
They’ll accomplish staff reductions by forcing or inducing early retirements for anyone honest, and they’ll call it a saving. That’s the Trump way.
Beyond that there’s the fact that anyone at MI6 or DGSE et al who shares sensitive intel with any US agency is going to be fired. We are putting out our eyes.
@Michael Reynolds:
I agree that plan != execution. I considered including that in my post but left it out for brevity. Still though, the defenses of CIA are noteworthy to me. As are the objections to the very idea of a reduction in force.
You assert that all the disloyalists will be purged. From what we’ve seen so far by this administration, it is not an unreasonable take. If they do move forward on this reduction, I suspect they will try to be very selective indeed, though they will be hard-pressed to weed out everyone.
Let’s assume they do move forward on the reduction, and that the vast majority are disloyalists. Will this result in thousands of former employees who are so disgruntled that they will engage in traitorous actions in service of Russia, China, etc*? I don’t have an especially high opinion of the agency, but that’s too cynical for me.
*You did not make this assertion. It was included in the article and noted in my prior post.
I’m actually a bit ambivalent on this. The bloat in US intel agencies from the Bush administration (war on terrah!) was massive. Bureaucracies have a tendency to never trimming themselves and need paring back from time to time.
That said, I have little faith in the methodology of this pruning. It will likely be the wrong people getting trimmed.
@Mimai:
Money, sex and ideology, aren’t they the big three motivations for treason? I don’t see that lining up. No, if CIA agents go rogue it will be as part of an effort to save the country. It’s patriotism that Trump has to fear. The Claus Philipp Maria Justinian Schenk Graf von Stauffenbergs out there.
@Michael Reynolds:
Also, the UK is now going to be considering how much effort and expenditure we can put into AUKUS if the US can’t be relied on re NATO.
The UK has various defence requirements in order of priority:
1 – Nuclear strike force
2- UK air/naval defence
3- Europe
4- Global alliances etc
If the US can’t be relied upon re 1), 2) and 3), then 4) has to get downgraded.
It’s simply unavoidable.
@Michael Reynolds:
The current level of dismissals of highly cleared staff is in itself a security risk.
As is the well-evidenced idiocy of the DOGE cross breed of junior G-men and script-kiddies.
I suspect what intelligence is now being shared is highly sanitised and reviewed beforehand.
Because some of the “highly cleared” in DC now are utterly, hilariously, unsuited.
Seb Gorka? Dan Bongingo?
ftlog.
fmfs.
The country that has really shifted on this is Germany.
The CDU/CSU have since the 1940’s been defined by being “Atlanticist” ie pro-American.
And that has been wrecked, by Trump, and especially by Vance, and now Rubio, pitching in for the AfD.
Utterly idiotic.
The German conservative establishment is now aligning with France re the long-standing French “Americo-scepticism”.
The UK is more cautious, and still more Poland, for obvs reasons, but even they are shifting, if you look at what they do, not what they say.
I would reserve judgement. On my understanding a lot of intelligence work amounts to nothing more than keeping abreast of publicly available information and summarising it for decision-makers (e.g. the CIA World Factbook). AI can probably perform tasks like that better than humans already. By 2030 it will be no contest.
@Ken_L:
Given the evidenced (to my satisfaction) incompetence of AI to sift the wheat from the chaff regarding verified history, I have serious doubts about its utility re current event data.
It might be useful as an initial sort/alert system.
But I’d really not like to rely on it for vital national security decisions.
@JohnSF:
It might make up a war between Freedonia and Fenwick based on routine military exercises.
@JohnSF: I’m thinking of routine tasks such as “Read all the media published in country X every day and write a one-page summary of the most featured stories”; “Read all the official EU statements for the last 10 years about trade and identify the major themes”. They don’t require much in the way of intelligence.
@Ken_L:
What you describe is what is in the DoD “Early Bird.” In the 80s and 90s it was amazing, not so much today with news aggregators (and AI, but GIGO issue). But not everything is open source (nor reported upon) so intel and code breakers are still needed. Even with the open source it needs to be evaluated for trends, and protecting sources. About 25 years ago I got a good chuckle over a Secret Intel report over my official (USA) dealings with some Russian civil defense officials (EMERCOM) where I was “a source of known reliability,” or some such. I know the Russians have a small file on me (and I assume the Baltic Nations do as well – how things work).