
The Mission by Tim Weiner review
In The Mission, Tim Weiner, whose reporting on the CIA in the New York Times was always essential reading, and whose subsequent books on the US intelligence community have a place on the shelves of anyone interested in international affairs, provides a variety of answers to this essential question. As he showed nearly 20 years ago in Legacy of Ashes, his history of the CIA from its founding in 1947 to the end of the 20th century, the agency's position by the end of the 90s was pretty desperate. It was starved of cash and bleeding talent. A high-flyer who had been station chief in Bucharest was revealed to be working for the Russians, handing them the names of large numbers of agents and employees. But the new US administration that came in at the start of 2001 wasn't too worried. In March that year, Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, told the joint chiefs of staff: 'For the first time in decades, the country faces no strategic challenge.' Six months later came 9/11. The CIA had tried to convince the feckless George W Bush about the looming threat of Islamic ultra-fundamentalism, but no one in the administration listened. The agency was regarded as broken.
People in British intelligence are often snarky about the CIA, as poor relations tend to be. Nevertheless, some of the private criticisms made by SIS – better known as MI6 – are well observed. (Weiner's sources inside and around the CIA are impressive and absolutely impeccable, yet he seems to have no great interest in other western intelligence agencies; apart from a few scattered references to SIS and GCHQ in The Mission, only Dutch intelligence gets much of a mention.) SIS has tended to believe that a fault line of naivety runs through the CIA: witness the way that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence led the agency by the nose in Afghanistan, persuading it to lavish funds on anti-western warlords whom the ISI supported for its own political purposes. The CIA's eyes were only finally opened when, by good old-fashioned detective work, its agents discovered that Osama bin Laden was living alongside Pakistani top military brass in Abbottabad.
But there's a more fundamental criticism that SIS and other intelligence aficionados level at the CIA: that it has never been allowed to be just an intelligence-gathering agency. US presidents from Truman onwards also wanted it to be a secret army, a point Weiner makes again and again.
Long before the shameful Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, when Reagan's officials sold weapons to Iran then funded the CIA's illegal guerrilla war in Nicaragua with the proceeds, presidents used the agency for their shady schemes despite any ethical qualms its operatives, and sometimes its topmost officers, might have had. The CIA accepted Bush's edict, based on the highly questionable advice he received from the relatively junior White House lawyer John Yoo, that waterboarding, lengthy sleep deprivation and hanging prisoners by their arms for hours on end did not constitute torture. Perhaps, as a government agency, it had no real alternative, but its employees certainly obeyed, sometimes enthusiastically and even sadistically. Weiner is clear in his condemnation of this, but inclined to give the CIA the benefit of the doubt: 'The CIA, with rare exceptions, was not a rogue elephant. When people were trampled, it wasn't the elephant's fault. It was the fault of the mahout – the elephant driver. And the mahout was the president of the United States.'
Well, perhaps. But it's hard to find excuses for Gina Haspel, for instance, who attended and oversaw one of the agency's black-site prisons before rising to become the first female director of the CIA.
Weiner's sources, which are excellent, seem not to have included Haspel herself. But they do encompass several senior CIA figures from the period under discussion. These people opened up to him, and as a result the book contains many essential new details. Weiner's account of Donald Trump's links to Vladimir Putin in 2016 is clearly based on information from inside the agency, and it leads him to assert openly that Trump was Putin's polezny idiot – his useful idiot. There are all sorts of other important and fascinating revelations in The Mission, but it's the book of a journalist at the top of his game, not an academic. Some of it is written in white-hot anger at the thought of what Trump is doing to the US, and to the CIA in particular. Weiner is clearly channelling CIA opinion when he writes scathingly about the ludicrous John L Ratcliffe, who was given the job of director by Trump. Ratcliffe unhesitatingly complied with Trump's extraordinary demand that the CIA should send the White House the first names and initials of every recent CIA recruit by non-secure email.
There is little doubt that Trump has damaged the CIA, but he may not have helped Putin as much as seemed likely when Weiner was writing his book. Whatever the Russian president thought he might get from a second Trump term, he has in fact been damaged quite badly so far. He has lost his puppet and his bases in Syria, partly through the CIA's efforts, and his ally Iran, after a shocking onslaught from Israel, now looks increasingly like a paper tiger. Ukraine – and Weiner is particularly good about the CIA's involvement in trying to stop the invasion in 2022 – hasn't, as many people expected, folded in the face of Putin's assault, and it's become harder for Trump simply to brush that war aside. Whether or not Putin indeed won the presidency for Trump in 2016 (Weiner quotes Russian government cybercriminals who he says swung the election as shouting 'We made America great again!') he is no longer pulling the strings to such good effect.
As I say, this is a journalist's book, and bears the marks of it. But no one has opened up the CIA to us like Weiner has, and The Mission deserves to win Weiner a second Pulitzer. Given the intense unpopularity of Trump in the upper echelons of American journalism, he may well get it.
John Simpson is the BBC's world affairs editor. The Mission by Tim Weiner is published by William Collins (£25). To support the Guardian, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
2024 book review: Trump, Biden, Harris and a turbulent election full of what-ifs
Donald Trump is on a roll. The 'big, beautiful bill' is law. Ice, his paramilitary immigration force, rivals foreign armies for size and funding. Democrats stand demoralized and divided. 2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America, by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager and Isaac Arnsdorf, is a book for these times: aptly named, deeply sourced. Kamala Harris declined to speak. Joe Biden criticized his successor in a brief phone call, then balked. Trump talked, of course. 'If that didn't happen … I think I would've won, but it might have been a little bit closer,' he says of the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, which set the race alight. Yet 2024 is about more than the horse race. It also chronicles how the elites unintentionally made Trump's restoration possible, despite a torrent of criminal charges against him, 34 resulting in convictions, and civil lawsuits that saw him fined hundreds of millions of dollars. 'Trump always drew his strength from decades of pent-up frustration with the American democratic system's failures to address the hardships and problems the people experienced in their daily lives,' Dawsey, Pager and Arnsdorf write. 'In 2024, [Trump's] supporters saw institutions stacked against them … leading them to identify viscerally with his legal ordeal, even though they had not experienced anything like it before.' Dawsey is a Pulitzer prize winner, working political investigations and enterprise for the Wall Street Journal. Pager covers the White House for the New York Times. Arnsdorf was part of the Washington Post team that won a Pulitzer for coverage of the assassination attempt. Dawsey and Pager are Post alumni. With Arnsdorf, they capture the aspirations and delusions of Trump and the pretenders to his Republican throne, of Biden and Harris too. 'In the weeks after the election, Biden repeatedly told allies that he could have won if he'd stayed in the race,' 2024 reports, 'even as he publicly questioned whether he could have served another four years.' Really? Biden's approval rating fell below 50% in August 2021 and never recovered. From October 2023, he trailed Trump. A year out, the authors reveal, Barack Obama warned his former vice-president's staff: 'Your campaign is a mess.' Biden's aides privately derided Obama as 'a prick'. 'They thought he and his inner circle had constantly disrespected and mistreated Biden, despite his loyal service as vice-president.' As for Harris, Dawsey, Pager and Arnsdorf report that she 'knew that the race would be close, but she really thought she would win'. Despite that, David Plouffe, a senior Harris adviser, admitted post-election that internal polls never showed her leading. 'I think it surprised people because there were these public polls that came out in late September, early October, showing us with leads that we never saw,' he said. Harris's debate win never moved the needle. Dawsey, Pager and Arnsdorf contend that the outcome was not foreordained. Rather, they raise a series of plausible-enough 'what-ifs'. One is: 'If the Democrats got clobbered, as expected, in the 2022 midterms, and Joe Biden never ran for re-election.' Except, by early 2022, according to This Shall Not Pass, a campaign book published that year, Biden saw himself as a cross between FDR and Obama. A telephone conversation between Biden and Abigail Spanberger, a moderate congresswoman now the Democratic candidate for governor in Virginia, captures Biden's self-perception. 'This is President Roosevelt,' Biden begins, before thanking Spanberger for her sense of humor. She replies: 'I'm glad you have a sense of humor, Mr President.' Back to 2024. Biden bristled at being challenged. Pushback risked being equated with disloyalty. His closest advisers were either family members or dependent on him for their livelihoods. He lacked social peers with incomes and personages of their own. Mike Donilon, a longtime aide, tells the authors: 'It was an act of insanity by the Democratic leadership to have forced Biden out. 'Tell me why you walked away from a guy with 81m votes … A native of [swing-state] Pennsylvania. Why do that?' Because Biden's debate performance was a gobsmacking disaster. He also found navigating the stairs of Air Force One difficult and needed prompts to find the podium. In May 2025, Biden announced that he had been diagnosed with stage-four prostate cancer – a disclosure that came after 2024 went to press. The authors of 2024 pose Republican hypotheticals too. One: 'If Trump never got indicted, or if Republicans didn't respond by rallying to him, or if the prosecutions were more successful.' Ron DeSantis, Florida's governor, demonstrated a lack of nerve. Glaringly, he failed to use the initial E Jean Carroll trial, over the writer's allegation that Trump sexually assaulted her, to bolster his presidential ambitions. DeSantis didn't dispatch his wife, Casey DeSantis, to Manhattan to offer daily thoughts and prayers for the plaintiff, or for Melania Trump. If you want to be the man, first you've got to beat the man. Another hypothetical: 'If Trump and Biden didn't agree to an early debate …' That question hangs over everything. Trump's pronouncements leave Dawsey, Pager and Arnsdorf anxious. After the 2022 midterms, he mused about terminating the constitution. Later, on the campaign trail, he spoke openly of being a 'dictator for a day'. When he was back in the West Wing, reporters asked: 'Are you a dictator on day one?' 'No,' he replied. 'I can't imagine even being called that.' Dawsey, Pager and Arnsdorf then catalog Trump's unilateral actions on that first day, including stripping political opponents of security clearances. Later that month, he commenced his vendetta against law firms he deemed to be enemies. In February, Trump barred the Associated Press from the White House press pool unless the news agency referred to the Gulf of Mexico as the 'Gulf of America'. 2024 contains no mention of Hungary's Viktor Orbán. Perhaps it should have made space. Hungary's leader is an autocrat in all but name, an elected leader who has removed freedoms regardless. Republicans adore him. 2024 is published in the US by Penguin Random House


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Obama's former press secretary recalls ‘emotional' mood in White House after Trump win
The hardest day on the job for the White House press secretary for most of Barack Obama's second term was right after Donald Trump was first elected president, he recently revealed during a fireside chat at a journalism convention. Speaking at the 2025 National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) conference in Chicago, Josh Earnest said it was grueling for the Obama administration to realize it would have to follow through on promises of a peaceful transfer of power despite spending the 2016 election cycle offering dire warnings 'about what could or would happen if Donald Trump were given the keys to the Oval Office'. Those warnings stemmed in part from intelligence assessments that the US's longtime geopolitical adversary Russia had interfered in the race in which Trump defeated former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Earnest said the Obama administration suddenly found itself needing to defend the validity of those assessments while saying it would peacefully transfer over the nuclear launch codes – and other levers of power – to Trump. 'Did [Obama] not mean how dangerous [Trump] could be?' Earnest asked rhetorically, referring to some of the questions he and fellow administration officials faced while briefing journalists at the time. 'It was a tough message.' The remarks on Wednesday from Earnest – who was Obama's press secretary from 2014 to 2017 – also offered a first-hand peek into the somber mood at the White House after Trump defeated Clinton. Like many, Earnest 'was very surprised'. 'I did not think he was going to win,' he said. Many Obama communications staffers were visibly demoralized, and Earnest said he and his aides decided to convene them, talk about Trump's victory and try to refocus them for the final two months in office. During that conversation, Obama summoned Earnest to go over the logistics of a nationally televised speech he was planning to give in the White House's Rose Garden. Earnest recalled Obama asking how it was going with the staff that morning – to which he replied that they were 'emotional'. Obama then asked an assistant to call the staff into the Oval Office. He stood in front of the Resolute Desk near his vice-president, Joe Biden, who would later succeed Trump in the White House – and gave them an early version of the speech he ultimately delivered that day. 'We have to remember that we're actually all on one team,' part of that speech read. 'We are Americans first. We're patriots first. We all want what's best for this country.' As Earnest noted, Obama's official White House photographer, Pete Souza, captured the scene with his camera. He recalled how it was the first time many people in the room that day had been in the Oval Office. 'It was very poignant,' Earnest told the chat's host, the ABC7 Chicago news anchor Tanja Babich. One of Earnest's most vocal critics in the aftermath of Trump's victory was the president-elect himself. Trump called Earnest a 'foolish guy' at a December 2016 rally. 'He is so bad – the way he delivers a message,' Trump said of Earnest after the latter defended the US intelligence community's assessment of Russia's interference. Earnest has been a top spokesperson for United Airlines at the company's Chicago headquarters since 2018. He spent some time being a media pundit early during the first of Trump's two presidencies. But Earnest told Babich he did not find it 'particularly fulfilling' given the way Trump's unpredictable, chaotic style of governing can often disorient news outlets. 'The questions could all be boiled down to, 'Isn't this outrageous what Trump is doing?' Earnest said. 'And it became about finding different ways to say, 'Yes.' 'I wasn't doing journalism. I was doing commentary. And it was pretty close to entertainment.'


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
As Texas cleans up, ex-staffers say Fema has ‘eroded capacity' for multiple disasters
As the cleanup continues from this month's torrential rain storms and flooding in Texas that left more than 120 dead, recently departed officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) say the organization is dangerously underresourced and overstretched in the event of further natural catastrophes. A mass staff exodus, plunging morale and a loss of key leaders has left the main US disaster-relief organization ill-equipped to cope with an anticipated deadly spate of storms in the current hurricane season, former agency insiders say. Fema's weakness, exacerbated by grant cuts imposed by the Trump administration and the loss of institutional knowledge in strategic leadership positions, will be exposed if the nation is faced with more than one disaster simultaneously, according to Michael Coen, the agency's former chief of staff. In an interview, Coen – who left his post in January after Donald Trump took office – said the officials at Fema had been preparing contingency plans that would enable the agency to meet the demands of hurricane season, which generally runs from early June until the end of November, with fewer resources. 'They understand that they don't have the resources they've had in past years, whether it's funding or even some contracts have lapsed,' he said. 'They are trying to make decisions so that they can handle multiple events at one time.' But since Trump's inauguration, the agency has seen an estimated 2,000 departures through resignations or retirements, which may have rendered it incapable of coping with the widespread carnage likely to be wreaked by a succession of tropical storms. 'I'm concerned that Fema is going to be at a disadvantage because they don't have the resources to respond to the disasters we know could happen, which could be two or three concurrent disasters at the same time,' said Coen. 'Fema has eroded capacity since President Trump became president. Staff have departed. There have been cuts to grant programs and they are going to be running into a financial challenge with the disaster relief fund, because the president hasn't requested supplemental funding from Congress.' Coen – a disaster relief career official who was also Fema's chief of staff during Barack Obama's presidency – said the cuts could mean the agency running out of funds to respond to disasters by the end of this month. 'Fema is currently supporting the state of Texas with the flooding and the urban search and rescue. But if in a week or two they also have to respond to a hurricane in the Gulf coast or an earthquake on the west coast, Fema is not going to be able to meet the expectations of the American people.' The concerns over Fema's state of readiness come amid signs that Trump may have had a change of heart about the agency's future after months of signaling that he favored its abolition. Last month, he said the administration planned to 'phase out' Fema after the current hurricane season to put more responsibility on individual states to respond to disasters. He previously described the agency – established in 1979 by Jimmy Carter with the goal of coordinating the US government's response to disasters – as 'not good' and said he would 'recommend that Fema go away'. But ahead of Trump's Friday visit to the worst-hit Texas flood areas, White House officials indicated that eliminating Fema entirely was no longer under consideration, the Washington Post reported. The newspaper quoted an unnamed official as saying changes would probably amount to 'rebranding' the agency while stressing the leadership role of the states in disaster response. Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary – who has overall responsibility for Fema and has chaired a review council looking into the agency's future – said in the wake of the Texas floods that Fema would be 'eliminated as it exists today and remade into a responsive agency', a hardline stance that nonetheless stopped short of abolition. Coen said the Texas floods had proved Fema's worth: 'This flood is a defining moment and brings clarity for the necessity of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Fema is an essential agency for the federal government to support states and support the American people in their greatest time of need.' But he said grant cuts had rendered it less effective and may have caused 'an unnecessary loss of life' in the Guadalupe River area of the Texas Hill Country, the worst-hit flood region. 'One of the grant programs they cut was the Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities, which was a program that would have funded things like the siren system to line a river like the [Guadalupe] in Kerr county,' he said. 'Not that many people needed to lose their lives if more mitigation measures had been put in place. With the president cutting a grant program that provides federal funding to increase mitigation in the country, it only is foreboding for the future on what could happen to other communities if they don't mitigate and they don't have access to federal funds.' The picture of an agency undermined by the Trump administration's hostility was corroborated by a former mid-level Fema official, who told the Guardian that staff had left because they felt disrespected. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion 'It's no secret that a lot of high-level leaders have left the agency,' the ex-official said. 'It's clear that Fema has lost a lot of leadership capability.' Among those who have left are Tony Robinson, who was Fema's head administrator for the region that includes Texas, as well as his deputy. Also recently departing was Robert Samaan, the administrator for the region that covers Florida and several other states in the hurricane-prone south-east. 'Those are two of the three most critical regional administrators for hurricane season, and for them to leave at this time leaves people shaken for sure,' the former staffer said. 'The lack of experienced leadership is certainly going to hamstring efforts. It's not to say that there aren't other good leaders who will step up. But LinkedIn is littered with people whose names I knew who have left.' The departure of 16 senior executives was announced on a single day in May. Compounding the problem is the damage to the morale of those remaining from what insiders say is the scornful attitude of Noem and Fema's acting administrator, David Richardson, a former marine artillery officer with no previous experience in disaster management. Richardson, who has been in the post since May, caused a stir among senior staff when he said during a briefing that he did not know there was a hurricane season. It was unclear if the comments were meant as a joke. Richardson was installed after Noem ousted his predecessor, Cameron Hamilton, after he told a congressional hearing that he did not favor Fema's abolition. The new administrator also threatened to 'run right over' any staff members who resisted reforms. 'I, and I alone in Fema, speak for Fema. I'm here to carry out the president's intent for Fema,' he reportedly said. Coen affirmed the picture of staff leaving due to fears for Fema's future. 'The reason many employees have departed since January 20 is because they had a fear that they were going to lose their job,' he said. 'Also, they didn't feel respected by the current administration. The current employees still there are supporting each other, but if they feel they are not getting support and understanding of how much they sacrifice when they go to disasters, it does have an impact on their mental health and wellbeing.' Noem, meanwhile, has drawn criticism for issuing a decree requiring that any expenditures or contracts worth $100,000 or more are submitted to her for prior approval – a requirement that critics say could impede rapid disaster response. 'Typically, pre-Trump, a decision like that would come at a much lower level than the secretary of homeland security so you could get out and mobilize,' the former official said. 'It's just unconscionable that you would centralize a decision like that, [which] truly, on reflection, would have led to the loss of life, or at least the loss of the ability to find the remains of the victims.' The Department of Homeland Security has publicly defended the directive as necessary to root out 'waste, fraud and abuse' and deliver 'accountability' to US taxpayers.