On August 19, one of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) top experts on Russia was terminated from her position four days after Trump’s meeting with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. The Washington Post, the paper that broke this story, did not divulge the name of this official out of concern for her safety.
The CIA official was preparing for an imminent assignment in Europe, which was approved by CIA Director Jon Ratcliffe. This makes the termination baffling at first glance, as Ratcliffe is fanatically loyal to Trump.
It was Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that was responsible for the firing. This CIA officer was one of 37 intelligence officials to have their security clearances revoked due to the baseless accusation of “politicization or weaponization of intelligence to advance personal, partisan, or non-objective agendas.” The National Security Agency’s top data expert was another one of those 37 employees fired without a coherent reason.
The sudden removal of Russia-experts has fostered an environment of self-censorship in the intelligence community.
The CIA officer’s dismissal sent shock waves through the workforce, a second former official said. “If it can happen to her, it can happen to anyone. … What analyst in their right mind is going to write something that in any way challenges … what they think the administration’s view is if they think they’re going to get fired over it?”
The Washington Post
An incentive for Trump to undermine intelligence agencies, especially when Russia is concerned, is because of the uncomfortable political truths they have reached over the course of intelligence gathering and analysis. Although Trump has been desperate to reach a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine in a vain attempt to earn a Nobel Peace Prize, the intelligence community generally agrees that Putin is unwilling or at least hesitant to make a deal.
While Gabbard, and potentially right-wing crackpot Laura Loomer have had a direct hand in the termination of this vital CIA officer, other CIA agents have blamed Ratcliffe for not sufficiently defending one of his own employees.
