How Intelligence Went the Way of Diplomacy
Failing to recognize that both are specialized professions, politicians keep putting amateurs in charge.
As the Trump administration continues to wage war on expertise, politicians who claim to care about competent governance are gaslighting us about what expertise actually means.
The White House may have succumbed to pressure to drop the nomination of the grossly unqualified Bill Pulte for the U.S. government’s top intelligence post, but the person it chose instead has no national security expertise of any kind, either, let alone experience with intelligence and spycraft.
For politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington, that doesn’t seem to matter one bit. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which today postponed a hearing on Jay Clayton’s nomination on Trump’s orders, is certain to approve it eventually, as is the full Senate. And why not? Senators have blessed embarrassingly unqualified appointees for top diplomatic posts for decades.
Sen. John Thune, the Republican Senate majority leader, proclaimed Clayton “a very qualified professional” because of his “great skill set for managing a complex problem set.” Democrats weren’t far behind in their praise. Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the House Intelligence Committee’s ranking member, said Clayton would make a “terrific” director of national intelligence (DNI).
Are we in Wonderland?
The U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Clayton, 60, served as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) during Trump’s first term. Up to that point, he had spent his entire career at the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, focusing on corporate law — except for a two-year clerkship for a federal district court judge in Pennsylvania after law school. He also holds degrees in engineering and economics.
These are stellar credentials. But in what universe are they sufficient qualifications to lead the entire U.S. intelligence community? Perhaps only in Alice’s Wonderland.
I have no doubt that Clayton will never hire a former intelligence officer without a law degree as one of his assistant U.S. attorneys in New York — or even as an associate at Sullivan & Cromwell. So why is it acceptable for a corporate lawyer who once ran the SEC to hold the country’s highest intelligence post without any national security expertise?
Intelligence is not merely a management challenge. It’s a specialized profession with its own tradecraft, culture, legal authorities, operational risks and analytical methods.
Redefining “expertise”
Would it be a good idea to appoint a distinguished surgeon to command a carrier strike group? Or a successful investment banker to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Yet when it comes to intelligence and diplomacy, Americans have become dangerously comfortable with the notion that expertise is optional.
Sure, Clayton is more qualified than Pulte, but who wouldn’t be? Before his current position as director of U.S. Federal Housing, Pulte ran his own construction investment firm — that’s his entire career. No wonder that even staunch Trump allies couldn’t stomach his nomination.
Both Clayton and Pulte may be nice people and patriotic Americans — I wouldn’t know. But seriously, how low have we sunk? While it has been clear for some time that Trump values only loyalty and despises expertise, politicians who profess at least some respect for qualifications should seriously rethink their definition of expertise.
Keeping The Diplomacy Notebook and The Diplomacy Podcast free for everyone isn’t easy. If you find them valuable, please consider making a donation. Thank you!
These developments aren’t entirely surprising, but rather a worrisome exacerbation of an existing trend. Few would argue that Tulsi Gabbard, who is set to leave the DNI post on Friday, is qualified, either — having served in Congress and the military is certainly not enough. For that matter, the intelligence credentials of another former House member, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, weren’t much better when he became DNI in 2020, during the final months of Trump’s first term.
According to media reports, it was Ratcliffe who recommended Clayton as Gabbard’s replacement. Pulte is expected to be acting DNI until the Senate confirms Clayton, which has angered some lawmakers.
Congress, acting on a recommendation by the commission that investigated the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, created the DNI office in 2004 to oversee all 18 intelligence agencies and organizations, including the CIA.
Legalized corruption
I’m not arguing against all national security political appointments — I never have. Every president deserves advisers who share his worldview and can be trusted to implement his agenda.
But there is a vast difference between appointing an expert with a political background and choosing someone with no expertise in the field whatsoever. The first is a matter of democratic governance. The second is a rejection of professional competence.
Qualifications, of course, have been consistently ignored by both Republican and Democratic administrations for more than half a century when selecting ambassadors. The growing influence of money in elections has worsened the problem to a point where handing out ambassadorships to the highest — but obviously unqualified — bidders amounts to legalized corruption.
Career diplomats spend decades mastering their craft only to watch campaign donors or bundlers leapfrog into some of the most sensitive jobs in government.
In recent years, successive administrations have politicized many more senior and even midlevel positions throughout the State Department that used to be filled by career diplomats and other civil servants. But the Trump administration may be in a league of its own on that front.
Settling for less
The intelligence community now appears to be moving in the same direction. The consequences may not be immediately visible, but they accumulate over time. As talented professionals leave and recruitment becomes more difficult, institutional memory erodes. Honest analysis becomes harder when officials fear speaking truth to power. Organizations gradually lose the very capabilities that made them effective.
Competence cannot be improvised. National security isn’t a reality TV show. Diplomacy isn’t a donor reward, and intelligence isn’t a generic management exercise.
This is the United States of America. We have many highly competent national security leaders with indisputably relevant credentials in both diplomacy and intelligence. Why are we settling for so little?
Will the U.S. government start selling military commissions to the highest bidders next? That may sound far-fetched, but before and during the Civil War, wealth, political influence and social standing often played a significant role in determining who received officer commissions.
If expertise no longer matters in diplomacy and intelligence, why should anyone assume the erosion will stop there?
Nicholas Kralev is the founder and CEO of the Washington International Diplomatic Academy, and a former Financial Times and Washington Times correspondent. His books include “Diplomatic Tradecraft,” “America’s Other Army” and “Diplomats in the Trenches.”
In the current context, incompetence and lack of experience and expertise are the point of the exercise. Professional judgment is out, loyalty to the leader in. The consequence of this toxic stew is inexorable. I’m just waiting for the crash and the sound of shattering glass, and the frantic finger pointing after that (if we’re lucky).