Politicized Intelligence

Definition

Shading of analysis to fit prevailing policy or politics

Consequence

Leads to mistaken wars

Historical Parallel

Iraq War Intelligence

Alternative Definition

Intelligence analysis is skewed, either deliberately or inadvertently, to give policymakers the results they desire

Alleged Target (Russiagate)

Donald Trump's presidency

Alleged Methods (Russiagate)

Reversing initial assessment, leveraging Steele Dossier, launching Crossfire Hurricane, using illegal FISA warrants

Countermeasure (by Tulsi Gabbard)

Referral of findings to Department of Justice

Alleged Orchestrators (Russiagate)

James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey

2016-11-08

2016-11-09

XXXX-XX-XX

XXXX-XX-XX

XXXX-XX-XX

XXXX-XX-XX

Banner # Intelligence Studies: Politicization of Intelligence ## Journal Articles ## What Does Politicization of Intelligence Mean? Politicization can be described as the shading of analysis to fit prevailing policy or politics. Politicization of Intelligence occurs when intelligence analysis is skewed, either deliberately or inadvertently, to give policymakers the results they desire. There are generally three most well-documented ways in which finished intelligence can be corrupted: [...] (From James J. Drylie's Intelligence document, www.kean.edu) ## Notable Scholars Richard Betts Robert Jervis ## Books ## Online Articles

Skip to main content The Intelligence Community’s Politicization: Dueling to Discredit # The Intelligence Community’s Politicization: Dueling to Discredit Partisans on both sides have claimed the intelligence community is gravely politicized. This threatens the integrity of U.S. intelligence assessments that make them trustworthy—and that, in turn, endangers U.S. national security. Article by Richard K. Betts August 21, 2025 4:37 pm (EST) [...] Partisans on both sides have claimed the intelligence community is gravely politicized. This threatens the integrity of U.S. intelligence assessments that make them trustworthy—and that, in turn, endangers U.S. national security. Will Trump’s India Tariffs Affect a Critical U.S. Partnership? [...] politicized, to the point of bad faith distortion at best or criminal intent at worst. This all threatens long-lasting damage to trust in the integrity of national intelligence functions, which in turn risks danger to national security from weakened intelligence institutions.

When you have intelligence that is politicized and pressured, as it was by, you know, Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, and trying to satisfy the White House, that's what you get. You get into mistaken wars. Jeffrey Goldberg: So, in short, it would be smart for any administration to look at recent history and say, I'm going to tell the truth to myself about what we've achieved. Anddrea Mitchell: Exactly. [...] David Ignatius: So, presidents always want intelligence that will support their policies, and intelligence analysts are always under pressure to tailor their reporting to support political goals. We saw this through the Vietnam War. LBJ was furious that the CIA didn't say this was going great, that the body count was not a useful metric. We saw it in Iraq where CIA analysts kept saying, you know, this isn't going to work. We saw it in Afghanistan. And so this is a recurring problem. [...] That is dangerous in the conduct of intelligence. That is what intelligence professionals try to avoid. Jeffrey Goldberg: That's the antithesis of the craft. Shane Harris: It's politicization of intelligence, which is precisely what she said she was going to root out in the intelligence community because she claimed it was endemic in the Biden administration. Jeffrey Goldberg: David, what is the danger, or maybe Andrea too, what is the danger of this politicization of intelligence?

No modern practitioner has ever advocated politicized intelligence. Sherman Kent, the CIA’s original champion of analytic objectivity, put it plainly: the analyst’s job is not to be right or agreeable, but to be honest—even when honesty is unwelcome. Substituting preferred conclusions for hard truths is not just a deviation from doctrine. It is malpractice. [...] After details of the original February memo were leaked to the press in late March, Gabbard posted on social media that the leak was a “politicization of intelligence” and affirmed that her office fully supported the administration’s position. By early May, the revised assessment was declassified and released through the Freedom of Information Act. [...] The assessment survived. The analysts did not. Within days of the release, Gabbard fired the acting NIC chair and his deputy. On social media, Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff described the NIC officials as “Biden holdovers,” who were removed for “politicizing intelligence.”