Editor’s Note: Samantha Vinograd is a CNN national security analyst. She served on President Barack Obama’s National Security Council from 2009 to 2013 and at the Treasury Department under President George W. Bush. Follow her @sam_vinograd. The views expressed in this commentary are her own. View more opinion articles on CNN.
President Donald Trump isn’t known for his reliance on the intelligence community. While his predecessors have turned to US intelligence to inform policy decisions and public statements, Trump seems to depend on television pundits who don’t have the applicable experience or access to classified information, as well as the words of foreign leaders with their own often self-serving agendas.
Now the fact that Trump couldn’t even gather basic intelligence before naming his nominee for the next director of national intelligence is a slam dunk for our enemies, who are watching this debacle play out in real time. These enemies are likely to capitalize on the perception of a dysfunctional, despotic and dangerous American leader, while our intelligence partners grow increasingly wary of working with the United States.
Vetting: Media matters
Last week, Trump announced on Twitter that he was nominating Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas for director of national intelligence. By Friday, however, he blamed the “LameStream Media” for the questions that were raised about Ratcliffe’s qualifications and announced he would be going with someone else for the role.
And yet, Trump seemed to contradict his own claims about the media just hours later when he credited the press with vetting nominees for him. “I give out a name to the press and you vet for me. We save a lot of money that way,” he said. By making the statement, Trump was doing something unusual – being honest about what matters to him: the media.
Ratcliffe made headlines for being highly critical of and combative toward Robert Mueller during the special counsel’s testimony in July. Ratcliffe has also made multiple television appearances calling for investigations into the intelligence community for its role in the special counsel’s investigation.
Perhaps, then, Trump did use the media to vet Ratcliffe – but in all the wrong ways. It looks like Trump saw Ratcliffe’s television appearances as an audition for the role – and despite Ratcliffe’s lack of experience, Trump thought he was good enough.
Ratcliffe wouldn’t be the first person to get – and then lose – a Trump nomination based, in part, on their television presence. Former State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert, formerly of Fox News, withdrew her nomination for UN ambassador when her actual vetting process fell flat.
Trump’s media-led vetting process, which he lets trump that of the FBI or ethics officials, confirms that getting his attention on air is a sure way to get him to do un-intelligent things. Even Russian President Vladimir Putin chose to do an interview with Fox last summer, during which he denied election interference, referenced domestic American political infighting and questioned Mueller’s role. He knew Trump would be tuned in, and we’ve seen Trump continue to joke about Russian election interference since that interview.
In short, using Trump’s trigger words or complimenting him on cable news can lead to an almost Pavlovian response from the President.
Google it
Now, a basic Google search would have showed the President that Ratcliffe, aside from his conspiracy-minded approach to the intelligence community and disregard for established oversight mechanisms such as inspectors general and congressional oversight committees, lacked any real experience that would allow him to fulfill the DNI’s mission, which goes against US law that requires the DNI have extensive national security experience.
Plus, you don’t need a security clearance to know that Ratcliffe (like Trump) embellished his resume and accomplishments – including on his websites – by misrepresenting his role as special prosecutor in an anti-terrorism case. Ratcliffe’s office told ABC News that rather than serving as a lead role in the case, he investigated issues surrounding what led to the mistrial. The Department of Justice declined to comment on the specific details of the case.
By nominating Ratcliffe, the President signaled that he doesn’t want a DNI who knows what he’s doing – he just wants a DNI who will do what Trump wants. In short, Ratcliffe checked that box, and Trump said publicly that he expected Ratcliffe to “rein in” intelligence agencies that had “run amok.”
That isn’t the DNI’s role, and Trump’s uncharacteristic honesty about his expectations messaged globally that the next DNI could be appointed to do Trump’s dirty work. This could have put our foreign partners at risk of exposure, while also having a chilling effect on the work our own intelligence officers do out of fear that contributing to something that the President and his DNI don’t like could put them in hot water.
Get our free weekly newsletter
Intelligence assessments should not be based on what a president wants to hear. They’re what the DNI determines to keep our country safe. They aren’t about proving the president right or wrong – they’re about contributing to an informed policy process. And if Trump doesn’t value our intelligence, we should reconsider why he has power over our national security.
Ratcliffe, even if he had been able to get confirmed, would have been a disaster for the intelligence community. His short-lived nomination was, too. It showed that a man who is good on cable news is good enough for Trump, even when it comes to one of the most sensitive positions in our country.
The self-inflicted wound of broadcasting internal dysfunction over basic nomination and vetting procedures won’t heal quickly, and neither will our intelligence partners’ analysis that working with the United States is increasingly risky. Unless Trump switches gears and nominates someone with experience and integrity, our intelligence community will come under increasing strain.
