Trump's paranoid security state
Why it matters: The recent revelations expose the deep mistrust between top national security officials and their own staffs — starting at the top, with a commander-in-chief who considers himself a victim of Deep State abuses.
Driving the news: The FBI has subjected senior agents to lie-detector tests to find the sources for fairly innocuous news stories, and even to ask whether agents have ever disparaged Director Kash Patel, the NYT's Adam Goldman reports.
Patel and his deputy, Dan Bongino, made their names in part by castigating the FBI before being tapped to run it.
Relations with career agents have been contentious from the start, and a number of senior agents have been reassigned or put on administrative leave.
Zoom out: The FBI isn't the only agency pulling out the polygraph.
A March memo from Joe Kasper, then chief of staff to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, stated that polygraphs would be used as part of a leak hunt. Incidentally, that probe devolved into a power struggle that saw Kasper himself ousted.
The Department of Homeland Security also said in March that it was using lie detector tests to try to find out who was providing alleged tip-offs ahead of ICE raids.
Agencies all across the federal government have used the devices, which aren't considered highly reliable, for even fairly minor leaks, per Reuters. In one case, FEMA staffers who attended a March meeting involving Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem were subjected to polygraph tests after some contents of the meeting became public.
What they're saying:"President Trump and the entire administration take operational security seriously – and that commitment was crucial to the success of operations like Midnight Hammer, which totally obliterated Iran's nuclear facilities," White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios.
"We certainly do not trust leakers who provide sensitive information to the media, or who commit felonies by leaking top secret intelligence."
Zoom in: A new unit under Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is seeking email and chat records from across America's spy agencies to find employees who may be undermining President Trump's agenda, the Washington Post reports.
The goal, The Post says, is to run that bulk data through AI programs to uncover malfeasance. Gabbard's spokesperson said the new unit's mission was "to expose the truth and end the politicization and weaponization of intelligence against Americans."
Gabbard has repeatedly accused the spy agencies she now oversees of "weaponizing" or "politicizing" intelligence under previous leadership.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
12 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump must not TACO his way out of helping Ukraine
President Donald Trump on Monday finally announced he would send more weapons to Ukraine, a sign of renewed attention to and appreciation of the besieged country's position. He also issued a risky ultimatum to Russian President Vladimir Putin, warning he would apply punishing 'secondary sanctions' on countries that continue to trade with Russia if the Kremlin fails to reach a peace deal with Ukraine within 50 days. If the sanctions kick in, they could hurt Russia — but also the whole world economy. To this point, Putin has calculated that time is his ally; he could wait out the West's patience with a grinding, expensive war of attrition. Trump is trying to change Putin's assumptions, forcing substantive negotiations on a deadline by brandishing an economic weapon — secondary sanctions — the United States has hesitated to use. Yet Moscow might see Trump's latest move as the opening bid in a negotiation or otherwise discount the likelihood that the United States will follow through. 'In another six months or so, the pendulum could swing back the other way,' Sergey Poletaev, an analyst at the Russian analytical platform Vatfor, told NPR. For the sake of Ukraine specifically and American credibility generally, Trump cannot back down. Trump is clearly frustrated with Putin. On Monday, he described having 'pleasant' and 'lovely' telephone conversations with the Russian president, only to find out soon after that Russian missiles and drones were pulverizing yet another Ukrainian city. Whether that frustration manifests in strong, sustained U.S. support for Ukraine, in weapons shipments and other measures, will determine how this conflict finally ends. Trump was typically vague in describing which actual weapons systems would be shipped to Ukraine, other than confirming that Patriot batteries and missiles, key air defense systems, would be among the hardware. This is crucial, as Russia in recent weeks has stepped up its devastating aerial bombardment as part of its much-telegraphed summer offensive, even as ground operations seem mired in a bloody stalemate. Ukraine also needs more offensive weapons to hit targets behind the front line. This is where the previous Biden administration moved too timidly, and too late, always fearing that more direct Ukrainian attacks on Russia might ignite a broader regional conflict against a nuclear power. (They didn't.) The Trump administration should continue to follow the Biden team's belated policy to let the Ukrainians use the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, to fire long-range ballistic missiles to strike targets deep inside Russia. Meanwhile, sanctioning Russia's ongoing trading partners would be a powerful tool to help bring Putin to the negotiating table. This is the path being pursued by a bipartisan group in Congress, which is proposing even higher sanctions of up to 500 percent on goods from countries that continue to buy Russian oil, gas, uranium and other exports. These sanctions would particularly hit China and India, which buy the bulk of Russia's oil. But what if Putin refuses to make peace and sticks with his maximalist demands for a dismembered Ukraine under Russia's thumb? Is Trump ready to ramp up the pressure? Will he sustain the arms shipments once the stockpiles run dry? Will he seize billions of dollars in frozen Russian assets? Will he try to crack down on the shadow tanker fleet that moves Russian oil? And will he follow through on his secondary sanctions threat, with its potentially vast implications for trade with countries such as China and India? The war against Ukraine has already persisted for far too long, with horrific casualty tolls on both sides. It will only end when Putin realizes he has nothing more to gain, and much more to lose, the longer it goes on. The arms shipments to Ukraine might bring that realization closer. More pressure can bring that day closer still. Now that Trump has issued his ultimatum, he needs to make clear to Putin he means what he says.
CBS News
13 minutes ago
- CBS News
Trump administration imposes 17% tariff on fresh Mexican tomatoes
The U.S. government said Monday it is placing a 17% duty on most fresh Mexican tomatoes, after negotiations over alleged unfair trade practices ended without an agreement to avert the tariff. Proponents said the import tax will help rebuild the shrinking U.S. tomato industry and ensure that produce eaten in the United States is also grown there. But opponents, including U.S. companies that grow tomatoes in Mexico, said the tariff will make fresh tomatoes more expensive for U.S. buyers. Mexico currently supplies around 70% of the U.S. tomato market, up from 30% two decades ago, according to the Florida Tomato Exchange. The move comes amid a separate push by President Trump to increase tariffs on dozens of U.S. trading partners, including Mexico, which was told over the weekend to expect 30% tariffs starting in August. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said in a statement Monday that the decision on tomatoes is "in line with President Trump's trade policies and approach with Mexico." "Mexico remains one of our greatest allies, but for far too long our farmers have been crushed by unfair trade practices that undercut pricing on produce like tomatoes. That ends today," Lutnick said in a statement. The Commerce Department said in late April that it was withdrawing from a deal it first reached with Mexico in 2019 to settle allegations the country was exporting tomatoes to the U.S. at artificially low prices, a practice known as dumping. The decision to withdraw from the Tomato Suspension Agreement was set to take effect in 90 days. As part of the 2019 deal, Mexico had to sell its tomatoes at a minimum price and abide by other rules. Since then, the agreement has been subject to periodic reviews, but the two sides have always reached an agreement that avoided duties. In announcing its withdrawal from the agreement, the Commerce Department said in late April that it had been "flooded with comments" from U.S. tomato growers who wanted better protection from Mexican imports. But others, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Restaurant Association, had called on the Commerce Department to reach an agreement with Mexico. In a letter sent last week to Lutnick, the Chamber of Commerce and 30 other business groups said U.S. companies employ 50,000 workers and generate $8.3 billion in economic benefits moving tomatoes from Mexico into communities across the country. "We are concerned that withdrawing from the agreement — at a time when the business community is already navigating significant trade uncertainty — could lead to retaliatory actions by our trading partners against other commodities and crops that could create further hardship for U.S. businesses and consumers," the letter said. The lead-up to Monday's decision drew criticism from some Democrats. "ARIZONA, BUY YOUR TOMATOES NOW!!" Sen. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, wrote on X last week. "Groceries are already too expensive. [Mr. Trump] needs to reverse this decision now." "Salsa will be pricier, shelves emptier, and groceries more expensive. Tens of thousands of jobs, including 30,000 Texans, will be at risk," Rep. Sylvia Garcia, a Texas Democrat, wrote on X.
Politico
18 minutes ago
- Politico
Cole: Hill GOP likely to pursue funding topline above White House request
House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole is planning for Hill Republicans to land on a government funding topline number that is above the White House's request, and he's been talking with his Senate counterpart about the matter as Capitol Hill girds for another major spending fight. In a brief interview Monday, the Oklahoma Republican said he was expecting 'a tough budget' and he didn't rule out the possibility of another stop-gap spending measure to keep the government funded if a larger agreement can't be reached by Sept. 30. House GOP leaders are still discussing funding toplines and plans with the Trump administration, and Cole said he has been talking 'back and forth' with Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins on the same topic. Notably, Cole said Hill Republicans will likely pursue a funding topline above what the White House has requested. That could clash with demands from House GOP hardliners who said they secured 'fiscal' assurances in exchange for shoring up the votes to pass the party-line megabill. 'We certainly are going to cut spending, but we probably are not going to be cutting at the level that [Office of Management and Budget] might have suggested,' Cole said. 'They've been very helpful in this process. I'm not being critical of them, but at the end of the day, we have to maintain some critical capabilities.' At the same time, Cole laid out the reality that the Senate's appropriations process, which includes bipartisan input on bills from the outset, will also yield a higher topline number than the House, necessitating cross-chamber negotiations on a final product. 'They have to get to 60,' said Cole. 'We usually cooperate at the end. So again, if you want to cut spending, you'll have plenty of opportunities to do it.' Privately, other Republicans are wary that going too far above the White House's topline funding request could push the Trump administration to lean harder into unilaterally cutting funding that's already been approved by lawmakers. That could include OMB chief Russ Vought seeking significant cuts known as 'pocket rescissions,' which don't need Congressional sign-off if sent to Capitol Hill within a certain number of days ahead of a government funding deadline. It's a move that Collins — and the Government Accountability Office — have warned would be illegal. But in the interview Monday, Cole acknowledged that House GOP leaders are only just now turning back to full-time appropriations planning after slogging through weeks of pushing through Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' House Republicans are voting on their defense appropriations bill this week and leadership is starting to whip the bill Monday night. Cole said he felt 'pretty good' about its chances of passing with enough GOP support.
