Steady State Letter To Ssci And Hpsci
ORIGINAL LETTER AVAILABLE AT LINK
September 10, 2025
The Honorable Tom Cotton, Chair
The Honorable Mark Warner, Vice Chair
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Rick Crawford, Chair
The Honorable James Himes, Ranking Member
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Concerns regarding need for intelligence assessment addressing Key Intelligence Questions
Dear Chairman Cotton, Vice Chairman Warner, Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Himes,
As Congress carries out its constitutional responsibilities it will face consequential national security decisions in the coming months and years. These decisions must be informed by the best intelligence available in order to ensure they are made wisely. Under the National Security Act, the Director of National Intelligence is charged to “ensure that timely and objective national intelligence is provided to the President, the heads of departments and agencies of the executive branch, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior military commanders, and the Congress.[1]” Congress has directed that “the National Intelligence Council shall… produce National Intelligence Estimates for the United States Government, including alternative views held by elements of the intelligence community.”[2]
Despite these requirements, there is little public evidence that President Trump is asking for, interested in, or even considering such intelligence. That makes it all the more vital that Congress takes the lead in posing the key intelligence questions that bear directly on America’s safety, credibility, and alliances. Accordingly, we respectfully suggest that you consider requesting a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) or similar document, at the highest classification necessary, to address the following matters. Specifically, such an assessment should address:
Allied Perceptions. The assessment should include an evaluation of how our allies view the United States today. This should include our closest partners (the “Five Eyes” nations), other NATO members, ASEAN states, and key partners worldwide. Among other issues, the Estimate should address whether allies believe the United States remains a stable democracy, whether they view our economy as strong and resilient or fragile, and whether they believe a peaceful transfer of power is likely to occur at the end of the Trump Administration. The assessment should also examine whether allies regard the United States as a reliable and predictable partner, or whether they are increasingly concerned about abrupt or dramatic shifts in U.S. policy.
Adversary Perceptions. The assessment should address how adversaries–including Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, and others– view current developments in the United States. Key questions include whether they view U.S. domestic divisions as opportunities to exploit, whether they conclude that America’s economic strength is waning, or that our defense posture is overstretched, whether they believe the United States’ commitment to international norms—including democratic governance and alliance solidarity—remains firm or has eroded, and whether the U.S. will remain meaningfully committed to its current alliances.
Allied and Adversary Plans and Intentions. The assessment should address what we know regarding the plans and intentions of both allies and adversaries in light of their perceptions of the United States. For our allies, this includes whether traditional European partners are developing contingency plans for conflicts in which they might, for the first time in generations, have to fight against U.S. forces if America were to align with Russia against NATO or Ukraine, for example. For adversaries, the assessment should consider whether they are preparing for the possibility that, for instance, Russia or others might find themselves fighting alongside U.S. forces against our traditional allies. This section should also examine whether allies are hedging their security by seeking closer partnerships with one another independent of the United States, and whether adversaries are probing opportunities to exploit perceived U.S. realignments.
Potential Realignments. Assess the degree to which Russia—and possibly other adversaries—believe that the United States may, in the near term, align with them against our traditional allies. This should include an evaluation of Russian and Chinese assessments of U.S. willingness to weaken or abandon NATO, or to accept spheres of influence that undermine current alliance structures. The assessment should also include analysis of the significance of recent reports of “summit” meetings involving Russia, China and India. The assessment should also analyze whether allies believe that such realignments are likely and how they are preparing for possibility, including whether any are increasing their defense spending, stockpiling materiel, or pursuing new bilateral or multilateral security arrangements.
Confidence in U.S. Commitments. Provide an assessment of how both allies and adversaries view the credibility of U.S. treaty and agreement commitments. Do allies believe the United States will honor Article 5 of the NATO Treaty in the event of an attack? Do ASEAN partners expect continued U.S. support for freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea? Conversely, do adversaries believe that formal treaties or agreements with the United States—such as arms control or trade agreements—will be upheld or abandoned? The Estimate should assess whether U.S. credibility is seen as eroding, and if so, what concrete steps allies and adversaries are taking in response.
Testing Public Claims. President Trump has repeatedly asserted that his presidency has elevated global perceptions of the United States—claiming that “the world will respect us… like never before,”[3]and more recently proclaiming that “people are respecting us again as a country and as a powerful country.”[4] He also declared that “our country is thriving and highly respected again.”[5] The assessment should use our best intelligence collection and analysis to rigorously test these propositions: Do the views of allies and adversaries confirm or contradict them? To what extent do they perceive U.S. influence, credibility, and deterrent capacity as having grown, diminished, or fundamentally shifted in recent years?
We believe that such an assessment will provide Congress with the critical insights necessary to inform deliberations at a time when international perceptions of the United States having a direct bearing on our national security are particularly salient. This information is essential for informed decision-making on matters of defense, and the United States’ role in global security.
While we assume—and certainly hope—that the President, his Cabinet, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Department of Defense share a keen interest in the answers to these questions, we see no evidence that the President has taken the need for such an assessment seriously or that he relies on intelligence to inform his decision-making. That makes it all the more critical for you, in your oversight capacity, to ensure you are fully informed by the Intelligence Community’s best analysis on the challenges that most directly affect America’s security and global standing.
Respectfully,
Steven A. Cash
Executive Director
The Steady State
[1] 50 U.S.C. § 3024 (as amended), National Security Act of 1947; see also DNI Mission Statement, Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Emphasis added.
[2] 50 U.S.C. § 3027, National Security Act of 1947 (as amended).
[3] Donald J. Trump, campaign remarks, quoted in Vanity Fair, “The Path to War,” May 2004; see also Facebook posting, Donald J. Trump, January 2016.
[4] Donald J. Trump, press remarks, February 24, 2025: (MyMotherLode.com, Feb. 24, 2025).
[5] Donald J. Trump, State of the Union Address, February 4, 2020: “Our country is thriving and highly respected again.” (Trump White House Archives).