When intelligence stops informing power and starts deferring to it, it ceases to be intelligence at all—and becomes a liability that risks strategic blindness, policy failure, and war.

In a functioning democracy, intelligence exists to illuminate reality, not to mirror power. That principle is not aspirational; it is structural. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was created to ensure that objective, apolitical analysis reaches policymakers with clarity, independence, and integrity. When that function falters, the consequences are not theoretical; they are operational, tactical, and strategic—often immediate, and sometimes tragic.

Recent testimony by Tulsi Gabbard raises a fundamental concern: whether the DNI is fulfilling that mission at all. By declining to assess whether Iran poses an “imminent threat” and asserting that only Donald Trump can make that determination, the DNI did more than sidestep a question—she relinquished the core analytic responsibility of her office. This is not how the system is designed to work.

The DNI is not an extension of presidential judgment. The role exists precisely to inform that judgment—grounding it in evidence, context, and independent analysis. “Imminence” is not a political label. It is an analytic conclusion derived from intelligence collection, pattern recognition, and expert assessment. When that responsibility is deferred upward, intelligence ceases to function as a check on power and becomes an instrument of it. That shift is especially dangerous given the complexity of today’s global threat environment.

Professor Jiang Xueqin, a Chinese-Canadian educator, and others have noted that the strategic alignment among Iran, China, and Russia is not incidental—it is structural. Eurasian integration, energy control, and geographic chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz form the backbone of a long-term competition that cannot be understood through isolated or reactive analysis. Iran is not just a regional actor; it is a connective node in a broader geopolitical architecture that links energy flows, financial systems, and military positioning.

We have already seen Iranian forces bolstered by Russian and Chinese technology.

Professor Xueqin posited that the war with Iran is also impacted by economic flow that comes from UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. If the supply chain from this Middle East sector is impacted, then the American economy is impacted. Understanding those inter-connecting systems requires exactly what the DNI appears to be abandoning: deep, integrative analysis.

The Steady State former intelligence professionals have raised alarms about the recent Annual Threat Assessment—pointing to its reliance on commercially available information, its lack of analytic depth, and its omission of critical threat domains ranging from domestic extremism to climate instability and global migration. These are not minor gaps. They are indicators of a diminished analytic enterprise.

The Steady State has gone further, warning that the document reads less like an intelligence product and more like a political one—shaped as much by omission as by inclusion. When key threats are excluded, and convenient narratives are emphasized, the result is not just incomplete, it is misleading.

This erosion of analytic rigor is compounded by a broader cultural shift. Discussions in recent forums by some of our retired members of the National Security Community have highlighted the growing influence of ideological framing. When strategic analysis is replaced by worldview-driven narratives, the risk is not just bias; it is blindness.

Blindness, in intelligence, is how wars begin. History offers a clear warning. From Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan, the United States has repeatedly entered conflicts where initial assumptions hardened into political commitments—commitments that then demanded validation, escalation, and, ultimately, prolonged entanglement.

In such an environment, the role of intelligence is not to justify decisions; it is to challenge them. That requires independence. It requires the willingness to assess threats, even when those assessments complicate political narratives. It requires the ability to connect disparate signals into a coherent picture of long-term risk. And above all, it requires leadership capable of exercising that responsibility.

Right now, that capability is in question.

When the DNI defers analytic judgment to the President, relies on shallow or incomplete data, and presides over a threat assessment that omits critical realities, the issue is not just performance—it is qualification. The position demands more than alignment with executive authority. It demands expertise, rigor, and the courage to speak with analytic clarity.

The stakes could not be higher. The partnership among Iran, China, and Russia, the fragility of global energy systems, the persistence of domestic and transnational threats are not problems that yield to simplified narratives or politically convenient omissions. They require a fully functioning Intelligence Community led by someone prepared to do the job as it was intended.

Intelligence must inform power—not defer to it. If that principle is lost, so too is one of the most critical safeguards of American national security.

Martha Duncan is a retired U.S. Department of Defense senior executive with 37 years of service, including 23 years as an officer in the U.S. Army Reserves, where she also served as Reserve Attache. She had three operational deployments to Panama, Bosnia, and Afghanistan. At DIA, she worked as a Latin American analyst for 11 years. A specialist in human intelligence (HUMINT), she is recognized for her leadership in intelligence operations, coalition-building, and enterprise-level policy development across the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the U.S. Army, and the broader Intelligence Community. She grew up in Panama during the rise of Manuel Noriega and was instrumental in his capture.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

There is good reason to think that, before the Iran war, Russia was close to the breaking point. Sanctions and low global oil prices were squeezing Russian revenues. Russian forces were making at best incremental gains on the Ukraine battlefield, at tremendous cost: well over 1000 casualties a day in 2025, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The loss of Russian access to Starlink in February helped shift the initiative to Ukraine, which began to recapture territory.

According to Russian journalist Mikhail Zygar, Putin was planning a shake-up inside the Kremlin, to include dismissing his chief Ukraine negotiator. A new team would be needed if Putin wanted to change course on Ukraine.

But the Iran war has handed Putin a lifeline. Oil prices are way up, with oil routinely selling at over $100/barrel. To keep prices down the US has waived sanctions on Russian exports. Air defense missiles that could have gone to Ukraine are being used up to defend against Iranian attacks. The cost of the war—the Pentagon has reportedly proposed a defense supplemental of $200 billion—will make the US even more reluctant to support NATO.

Relations between the US and its allies, already strained, have been shredded by a war undertaken with no American consultation with key partners in Europe and Asia. These regions are being badly hurt by oil and gas shortages. These same allies are being publicly attacked by President Trump for refusing to help; Trump and Secretary of State Rubio are now openly talking about leaving NATO altogether.

Russia is ecstatic at seeing the US once again drawn into a Middle East adventure that squanders American resources and distracts it from countering Russia. America’s lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan helped Putin immensely as he consolidated power and re-built Russia’s repressive systems in the first decades of the 21^st century.

Putin’s long-game strategy in Ukraine has always been to count on the West’s internal divisions. He has calculated that the US and NATO will struggle to sustain a common front, and that the US will be paralyzed by disagreements between America-firsters and those wanting to counter Russia. Russia has done all it could to widen these fissures, from massive social media campaigns to hosting Tucker Carlson in Moscow. It has manipulated Victor Orban’s Hungary into being a constant obstacle to European support for Ukraine; Hungary is now blocking a $100 million loan to Ukraine on the pretext that Ukraine is not allowing Russian oil to flow through the Druzhba pipeline. Russia is reportedly providing Iran with targeting information to use against the US.

Curious things are happening inside Russia. Major cities, including Moscow and Petersburg, have recently been experiencing prolonged interruptions in basic internet services as the state tries to force users onto MAX, a single centralized service. Russia’s complacent middle class, which up to now has been carefully insulated from the impact of the war in Ukraine, is now feeling some discomfort. Muscovites are complaining they can’t get Uber rides or order take-out. Putin seems to judge that now is a critical moment to tighten his control and further restrict access to outside information.

Is this, as Zygar suggests, in preparation for changing course and abandoning Russia’s maximalist demands? In this case Putin may fear a backlash from the militant nationalists he has whipped into a frenzy over the past four years. Recently one of his fervent supporters, Ilya Remeslo, issued a public attack on Putin that went out to his 90,000 Telegram followers, one of the services now being disrupted: “Vladimir Putin is not a legitimate president. Vladimir Putin must resign and be ​brought to trial as a war criminal and a thief!” Two days later Remeslo found himself in Petersburg’s Psychiatric Hospital #3.

Or, could Putin, seeing NATO divided and distracted, instead be preparing for escalation? This would require a level of mobilization that Putin has so far tried to avoid: higher taxes, rationing, conscription—sacrifices that would not spare the urban middle class. Russia and the US have been negotiating fruitlessly about Ukraine for months. Russian commentators are now warning that negotiating with America is a dangerous waste of time, pointing to how the US used its negotiations with Iran to disguise its attack.

Putin has been preparing Russia for something like this. The movie “Mr. Nobody Against Putin,” which recently won an Oscar for best documentary, shows how since the beginning of the ‘special military operation’ in 2022, Russian school-children have been bombarded with ultra-nationalist propaganda. Mandatory programs teach Russians to fear the West and hate Ukrainians. They incessantly put before young people the example of World War II, the Great Patriotic War, a time of sacrifice to the Motherland. They prepare them for military service with practice marching, weapons training, and exposure to Ukraine veterans.

Putin is consumed by visions of his historical importance that depend on winning the Ukraine war and permanently returning Ukraine to its ‘rightful place’ in the Russian empire. Thanks to Donald Trump he may now see this as within reach.

Trump and his close supporters, who have long despised Ukraine and looked up to Putin, may not be unhappy with this turn of events. Military adventurism, propaganda in schools, clamping down on dissent, and intimidating online critics are all in the Trump playbook. Putin is intent on controlling the outcome of parliamentary elections this fall, just as Trump is hoping to shape the midterms. The meeting of minds between two old enemies may not be as jarring as the infamous Hitler-Stalin rapprochement in 1939 that led to the Second World War. But it is equally shortsighted and morally bankrupt.

Adam Wasserman is a retired CIA analyst with experience on failing democracies in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. He served on the State Department Policy Planning Staff, the CIA Red Cell, and the National Security Council staff. He is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

In this edition of the Sentinel podcast, host Lauren Anderson, former senior FBI executive, sits down with Ambassador Tom Shannon, one of the most experienced diplomats of his generation. They discuss what Shannon describes as a “counterrevolution” in U.S. foreign policy – a shift away from the post-WWII alliance-based system toward a more unilateral “America First” approach. Shannon warns that the erosion of institutional expertise at agencies like the State Department and FBI, and across the national security enterprise, will have long-term consequences for U.S. effectiveness abroad. He also emphasizes the enduring importance of soft power, including programs like the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP), in shaping global relations. The conversation closes with a look at how Gen Z students, including those Shannon teaches at Princeton, view America’s role in a chaotic world.

Thomas A Shannon Jr. is one of the United States’ most experienced career diplomats, with more than 35 years in the Foreign Service. He served as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the State Department’s top career diplomat, and held senior roles across multiple administrations, including as U.S. Ambassador to Brazil and Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. He also led the department through the transition between the Obama and Trump administrations. Now teaching at Princeton University, Shannon brings deep expertise in diplomacy, U.S. foreign policy, and America’s role in a rapidly changing world.

View the episode transcript here and watch for the full write-up on Thursday.

Since the Trump administration launched Operation Epic Fury on February 28, 2026, the public has been subjected to a torrent of misinformation, disinformation, and conflicting accounts regarding everything about the action, from its motives to who is responsible for what. A good term for the way information has been managed in Epic Fury is “gaslighting.”

Gaslighting, a form of psychological manipulation where the perpetrator attempts to make the victim doubt their memory, perception, or sanity, has emerged as a significant term in contemporary discourse and seems to be a tool of choice in Trump’s authoritarian playbook as he increasingly employs the technique to sway public opinion, manipulate narratives, and consolidate power. The term comes from the 1938 play ‘Gas Light,” and its film adaptations, in which a husband manipulates a wife into believing that she is losing her mind by subtly altering elements of their environment and then denying the changes when confronted. In politics, gaslighting involves deliberately distorting facts, denying reality, and creating false narratives to disorient the public. In both of his terms, we’ve seen Trump use these tactics to create confusion and manipulate reality. Gaslighting has been in full-speed-ahead mode since the US launched in Epic Fury.

During Trump’s first term in office, he frequently teased pulling out of NATO, and since his second inauguration, relations with our European allies have been strained by his erratic tariff policies and his threat to ‘take’ Greenland from Denmark. Then, there was his failure to notify NATO allies in advance of the launch of Epic Fury. The attack came as no surprise, given the buildup of US naval forces in the Gulf prior to the attack, but there was no official notice of the start of hostilities to enable our allies to protect their installations and embassies.

Once the fighting started, and the Iranians closed the Strait of Hormuz, Trump then demanded the allies come to our support, and expressed anger when, one by one, they rebuffed him. Ignored during his outburst of anger, which included a threat to pull the US out of NATO, was were his remarks in January, dismissing the sacrifices of NATO and other allies in their support of the US in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001, and lasted for two decades. In public remarks about NATO in January of this year, Trump said that the US had never needed its NATO allies and that allied troops had stayed “a little off the front lines” in Afghanistan. Statistics available from official US sources on OEF show the remarks to be misinformation at best, and outright lies at worst.

According to a White House web page dated October 7, 2002, one year after the start of OEF, 27 coalition countries had forces in Afghanistan, totaling 5,000. The US had 9,000 troops on the ground. During that first year, coalition nations deployed more than 14,000 troops in support of OEF, and while no numbers were given, it was reported that coalition forces also suffered deaths and injuries in support of OEF. Coalition partners provided a wide range of combat, logistics, and training support to OEF, including special operations force deployments.

NATO allies participated in combat operations from the start of OEF and also provided logistical and intelligence support.

The illustration below shows the organization of coalition forces during OEF.

Organization of OEF Forces (Courtesy of CENTCOM)

The following chart presents coalition military fatalities in the Afghanistan War (Operation Enduring Freedom/ISAF) relative to each contributing nation’s population. Values include total Killed in Action, national population (in millions), deaths per million population, and the equivalent percentage of national population. Nations with smaller populations and substantial combat deployments—such as Georgia, Denmark, Estonia, the United States, and the United Kingdom—show the highest per-capita fatality rates. Countries with limited combat roles or larger populations show correspondingly lower per-capita rates.

What these charts show is the gaslighting tactic of outright denial of verifiable facts, creating an environment where truth becomes subjective, and we are left questioning the validity of established information. The deliberate distortion of facts and denial of reality threatens the very concept of objective truth. When political leaders manipulate information to suit their agenda, the line between truth and lies blurs, undermining our ability to make informed decisions. It also weakens the foundations of democratic governance.

That this situation has security implications for all of us is undeniable. One has but to look at the current cost of a gallon of regular gasoline. Gaslighting is not the only fault to be found with the way the administration has handled Epic Fury, but as the refusal of our NATO allies to be pulled into the quagmire illustrates, it certainly imposes its own costs.

Much of the damage done will be hard to undo. Some of it is permanent. Our relationship with our NATO allies, for example, which has endured for over 75 years, will probably never be the same again, as they form new partnerships to compensate for America’s vacillating resolve from election to election. The question, though, is how will we survive? Or will we, like the boy who cried ‘wolf’ too many times, be eaten by that wolf?

Charles A. Ray served 20 years in the U.S. Army, including two tours in Vietnam. He retired as a senior US diplomat, serving 30 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, with assignments as ambassador to the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Republic of Zimbabwe, and was the first American consul general in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He also served in senior positions with the Department of Defense and is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Our allies refusal to join us in Iran is a warning. If America does not rebuild respect, credibility, and partnership, isolation will be the new normal.

Our allies refusal to join the United States in its war in Iran is framed by the current Administration as a failure of allied courage or commitment. It is neither. Instead, it is a damning judgment on the actions of this Administration toward America’s partners and allies, international law and multilateralism, democratic principles, and human rights. This judgment is a significant shift that, if unaddressed, will undermine U.S. international relations for years to come.

I cannot recall another moment in my 36-year diplomatic career when none of our traditional partners and allies chose to stand with the United States. Contrast this with NATO’s response after the 9/11 attacks. Our NATO allies honored America’s invocation of Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which states that an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all, and commits members to assist the attacked party. NATO provided troops and military support. This was the first time Article 5 was instituted, and our allies proudly stood with us.

Not today. The U.S. has been rebuffed by nations that have unhesitatingly stood with us.

Now we are isolated, and we did this to ourselves. This isolation is the predictable outcome of a new domestic and foreign-relations pattern of making unreasonable demands, lacking a consistent strategy, being unpredictable and, most of all, treating partners and allies as tools rather than sovereign equals.

For decades, U.S. diplomacy operated on a simple principle: before taking major international action, consult with partners and allies. In 2018, when the U.S. bombed Syria in response to Syria using chemical weapons, we engaged with France and the United Kingdom. Ultimately, we announced that the United States, France, and the United Kingdom launched combined “precision strikes” against Syrian targets.

During my long diplomatic career, we consulted regularly with other countries. Our outreach was based on the premise that good relationships and trust build legitimacy. Successful diplomacy is about engaging countries on a regular basis, even our adversaries. It is how a responsible state in the international system behaves, especially a powerful nation.

Responsible consultation also demonstrates humility. A concept the current Administration does not seem to understand. Being powerful does not require threats or shows of military strength to achieve goals.

The basic principle of engaging partners and allies was absent in our war with Iran. Allies were not properly informed before the strikes. Countries with citizens in Iran were not adequately warned that their people, their infrastructure, or their companies could be at risk. There was little visible attempt to engage the United Nations or to seek earnest multilateral backing. Regular engagements with allies and others were replaced by something different: act first, then complain later if no one follows.

This unilateral instinct is reflected by the way we have treated some of our closest partners. Take South Korea, for example. The United States may soon withdraw key air defense assets, including the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), from South Korea to deploy them to the Middle East. There is little South Korea can do to stop the U.S. from doing so. However, since the end of the Korean War we have assured South Korea that we have their backs, and that they will benefit from our extended deterrence. In fact, we have convinced them not to develop a nuclear weapon because of that extended deterrence. Simply withdrawing these systems is short-sighted, as are American tariffs on South Korea affecting Korean industries and workers, and the recent detention and deportation of over 300 South Korean workers from a Hyundai-LG Energy Solution battery plant construction site in Georgia that was to provide jobs for Americans. These actions tell South Korea that the United States treats security and economic ties as bargaining chips rather than the foundation of a shared strategy.

Our approach to NATO, and Europe more broadly, also sends a destructive message. Questioning NATO’s value, criticizing and mocking European nations and leaders, and floating ideas like buying Greenland – the territory of a NATO ally – sends an unmistakable message: Washington knows best, and allies are expected to fall in line.

The moral and legal dimensions of recent U.S. behavior increase our isolation.

America’s allies have witnessed this Administration’s questionable uses of force, such as sinking boats in the Caribbean on the claim that the boats carried drug traffickers. Claims that lack transparent evidence to justify that that action, which include killing the crews of those vessels once the vessels have been immobilized. To date, U.S. Southern Command reports that U.S. military strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific have killed over 150 people. Similarly, the United States has invaded Venezuela and taken President Maduro prisoner. These actions have been labeled by some lawyers as violations of international law. President Trump, however, made it clear in early 2026 that his actions and use of American power are constrained only by his “own morality” and his “own mind,” not by international law. Relying on his own morality and own mind, President Trump pardoned the former President of Honduras, who had been convicted of Narco-Trafficking, as well as individuals who committed other criminal acts, including the January 6^th rioters.

The international community has also witnessed American mistreatment of migrants and asylum seekers through family separations, an abandonment of due process, harsh detention conditions, and violently aggressive immigration raids. They have witnessed the detention and killing of American citizens. They’ve seen people, including children, dying in U.S. detention centers. The United States projects the image of a country that is disturbingly comfortable with the suffering of vulnerable populations.

This moral indifference is not limited to our borders or even just our hemisphere. The dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has worsened starvation. In 2025, for example, the U.S. incinerated nearly 500 metric tons (about 1 million pounds) of taxpayer-funded emergency food aid stored in Dubai after delays caused by USAID staffing cuts. The food was to be sent to hungry children in crises. We then followed this up by withdrawing from over 66 international organizations, some of which address issues affecting women, children, and the effects of climate change.

These acts erode any perception that the United States is a defender of human rights. We are now on “that side” of the list of countries with little to no moral authority or a guardian of a rules-based order.

Yet there is more.

Countries around the world watch this Administration, and this President, make extreme and racist statements, and use racist images. There are no filters to mask their racism, nor does the Administration and its supporters seem to care how these statements resonate domestically and abroad. The President and many of his friends are connected to Jeffrey Epstein and are alleged to have engaged in sexual crimes. Foreign governments have acted against leaders implicated in the Epstein scandal. Yet this Administration hides the facts and blames political opponents. Leadership matters, as do the personal entanglements of leaders.

For democratic governments that must answer to voters and taxpayers, joining a controversial U.S. war is not just a security decision—it is a reputational gamble. Foreign publics see the pattern of scandals, alleged abuse, and an apparent lack of full or even partial legal accountability. Few responsible leaders want to explain to their citizens why they aligned their country with a government perceived as indifferent to basic human rights and the crime of sexual abuse. The Trump Administration appears oblivious to the fact that “business is not usual” in a country where a major scandal involves its leadership and those around it. Some may wish to pretend others won’t be affected, or that the public won’t care, but leaders of democratic nations know their constituencies care. They will weigh this in their calculations of association with the U.S. and, when they can, find ways to dissociate themselves from this Administration and the “Epstein class.”

Our allies’ refusal to support the United States in Iran is more than a question about why the United States and Israel invaded Iran and how the war will end. The hard truth is that many now see the United States as a rogue actor and inconstant ally. We are seen as a country that disregards international law when it is inconvenient, undercuts multilateral institutions while insisting others respect them, treats human life as negotiable both at home and abroad, and uses alliances as instruments of pressure rather than partnerships of mutual respect.

There is another truth this Administration and this Nation must confront: military power alone does not confer leadership, nor does it automatically confer respect. This Administration cannot bomb its way into legitimacy. The U.S. cannot ignore international processes that help ensure stability in the international system – a system the United States helped establish after World War II.

Sadly, this Administration has repeatedly shown itself willing to punish or abandon partners when convenient, and there is no reason to assume this would be any different were an ally to provide military support to the Iranian War. Under those conditions, refusal is not seen by our allies as betrayal. It is seen as responsible self-preservation.

If the United States wants allies to stand with it again in future crises, it must change course.

As a start, this Administration must restore a strong, respected State Department and make genuine consultation with allies the default, not the exception. Partners and allies must be treated as equals, not subordinates. This Administration must publicly and clearly commit to following international law, supporting the United Nations, and engaging in serious multilateral diplomacy.

Just as importantly, The Administration must align the United States’ domestic policies with the values we claim to uphold. It must end abusive detention practices, value migrant lives, and hold our own officials to account when they violate the law or basic ethics. If we fail to rebuild international respect, credibility, and partnership, we will be treated as a rogue national and inconstant ally, which will only benefit America’s adversaries.

Ambassador (ret.) Bonnie Jenkins is currently the Shapiro Visiting Professor of International Affairs at the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington University. She is also Founder and Executive Director of Women of Color Advancing Peace and Security (WCAPS). Jenkins served as the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. From 2009 – 2017, Jenkins served as Special Envoy and Coordinator for Threat Reduction Programs in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation with the rank of Ambassador. She is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.