INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITYCongress Has a Chequered History of Overseeing U.S. Intelligence and National Security
The role of Congress is to conduct oversight. It is the role of the governing administration to keep Congress informed of intelligence matters, particularly covert operations. History shows this has often been hard to achieve.
Tonya Ugoretz, a top FBI intelligence analyst, was placed on administrative leave in June. The FBI has not said why. But the decision came around the time she refused to endorse what was reportedly a thinly sourced report accusing China of interfering in the 2020 US presidential election in favour of Joe Biden.
At the Bureau, loyalty tests and polygraph checks have also allegedly become routine as part of a crackdown on news leaks. When approached by the New York Times about the matter, the FBI declined to comment and cited “personnel matters and internal deliberations”.
The situation does not seem to be much different at the CIA. In May, agency director John Ratcliffe ordered a review of the intelligence community’s earlier conclusion that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign on behalf of Donald Trump. The conclusion, Ratcliffe contends, was unwarranted and imposed by political pressure – a claim that has been rejected by one of the report’s leading authors.
The intelligence community has reportedly also been under pressure to substantiate Trump’s claims that the recent military strikes on Iran had obliterated its nuclear sites. This is despite mixed evidence regarding the extent of their success. These examples suggest a growing politicization of intelligence and national security in the US.
Researchers and observers have highlighted the detrimental effect of this process. When intelligence is conducted by ideologues that are screened for loyalty, it often becomes more about pleasing the leader than collecting accurate information and preventing failure.
Less attention has been paid to the permissive attitude of Congress. Many Republicans in Congress have taken an unquestioning attitude toward the claims made by the president and other officials, allowing intelligence agencies to pursue Trump’s agenda unimpeded.
While Trump and Patel’s focus on personal loyalty when it comes to intelligence is new, partisan influence in congressional oversight is not. In fact, Congress has a long history of supporting the intelligence priorities of the governing administration.
For much of the cold war, Congress was not involved – and did not want to be involved – in matters of intelligence. This view was expressed by former CIA legal counsel, Walter Pforzheimer, during an interview in 1988. Reflecting on the early days of oversight, he stated: “It wasn’t that we were attempting to hide anything. Our main problem was we couldn’t get them [Congress] to sit still and listen.”
