Former CIA officer Jim Lawler and former FBI senior executive Lauren C. Anderson host Mark Zaid, a renowned national security attorney who has represented whistleblowers, been personally targeted by a presidential clearance revocation, and fought for government transparency for nearly three decades.

They discuss the real difference between a whistleblower and a leaker (using Edward Snowden as a cautionary example), the erosion of democratic norms under the second Trump administration, and why the rule of law has become “water soluble.”

Zaid predicts that the loss of seasoned diplomats, intelligence officers, and FBI agents will take a generation to rebuild, and explains why, despite everything, the judiciary remains his beacon of hope. The conversation also covers FOIA in the digital age, his representation of clients across the political spectrum, and practical advice for law students entering national security law.

Mark S. Zaid is a nationally recognized Washington, D.C. attorney specializing in national security, First Amendment, government accountability, and whistleblower representation. He founded the James Madison Project in 1998 and co‑founded Whistleblower Aid in 2017. He represented the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the first impeachment of President Trump, sued Libya on behalf of Pan Am 103 victims, and taught security clearance law as an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University. You can follow his work through the James Madison Project (www.jamesmadisonproject.org) and on X (formerly Twitter) at @MarkSZaidEsq.

View the episode transcript and watch the episode below:

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.

Graphic Generated by AI

President Trump is escalating his efforts to use the DOJ as an instrument of vengeance, using loyal appointees and dubious legal maneuvers to tilt the system—undermining the courts and the rule of law.

The recent announcement that octogenarian Joe diGenova has been called out of obscurity to lead the South Florida-based legal jihad against former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and other enemies of President Trump shows that the firing of Pam Bondi has done nothing to derail the Department of Justice Retribution Train, which continues to rumble on. DiGenova replaces a veteran prosecutor who was removed from the team, reportedly because she was having trouble identifying a crime in the sprawling Grand Conspiracy Investigation. In what appears to be an ongoing application to be nominated as Attorney General, Todd Blanche continues the criminal pursuit of a broad array of enemies identified by the President, regardless of any evidence of wrongdoing.

DiGenova, an election denier and conspiracy theorist with ties to Rudy Giuliani and a gaggle of corrupt pro-Russian Ukrainians, is a perfect Counselor to the (acting) Attorney General to represent the Grand Conspiracy Investigation being led by Jason Quinones and his handpicked team before federal district court judge Aileen Cannon. Cannon, of course, gained notoriety for her consistently overturned rulings in favor of defendant Donald Trump in the classified documents case. She continues to protect Trump by permanently blocking the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report detailing his investigation into Trump’s mishandling of classified documents. As the only federal judge for Fort Pierce, Florida, she is now in a position to oversee a criminal investigation into those who had the very difficult task of addressing Russia’s extensive and well-documented efforts to influence the 2016 election. It is not clear what crimes will be presented to the Fort Pierce grand jury being supervised by Judge Cannon; on the other hand, it is hard to imagine what Fort Pierce has to do with a criminal investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election other than the Department of Justice’s ability to select a judge who consistently has shown her pro-Trump bona fides to hear a case that the President has demanded as part of his retribution campaign.

Unlike the district court judges in Virginia who oversaw the failed efforts to indict James Comey and Leticia James, Judge Cannon is unlikely to let the law get in the way of allowing an indictment against President Trump’s perceived enemies. Given US Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s lack of success in indicting Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin and four House members for publicly stating the law (i.e. that military members must not follow illegal orders) and her difficulty in indicting Jerome Powell for the crime of not lowering interests rates as demanded by the President, it might make sense for Ms. Pirro to seek a transfer to Judge Cannon’s jurisdiction.

In addition to Joe diGenova’s return to public life, DNI Tulsi Gabbard also came out of obscurity long enough to announce that she had made a criminal referral related to the infamous “perfect phone call” that led to the first Trump impeachment. The targets, incredibly but not surprisingly, are the Ukraine impeachment whistleblower and the former Inspector General who dealt with the complaint in a professional manner. This level of criminal justice weaponization is simply unprecedented.

This is the second time that Gabbard has released documents that she claims show criminal behavior, when in fact they do not live up to the hype. Readers may recall that last summer, Gabbard also released a series of documents with a breathless press release claiming a “treasonous conspiracy” by President Obama and his intelligence team to sabotage Donald Trump. Sadly for conspiracy theorists (and also likely for the Grand Conspiracy Investigation gang), a reading of the documents indicates no such thing. If anything, these documents underscore the extraordinary care that was taken by the interagency working group that dealt with Russia’s 2016 election interference, and the professionalism of the Intelligence Community Assessment.

There are several explanations for Gabbard’s actions. First and foremost, she is reportedly on thin ice with the White House (particularly after the resignation of her hand-picked head of the National Counterterrorism Center over his opposition to the Iran war), and needs to demonstrate fealty.

Of greater importance, she is sending a message that is intended to intimidate current Intelligence Community officers throughout the IC: provide honest intelligence assessments that contradict what the White House wants to hear, and you will be fired. Dare to report wrongdoing or illegal actions, no matter how egregious, and you will be referred to Todd Blanche’s Department of Justice and may well be criminally investigated. In other words, follow the law and do the right thing, and the Retribution Train just might be making a stop at your doorstep.

James Petrila spent over thirty years as a lawyer in the Intelligence Community, working at the National Security Agency and, for most of his career,at the Central Intelligence Agency. He has taught courses on counterterrorism law and legal issues at the CIA at the George Washington University School of Law. He is currently a senior advisor to the Institute for the Study of States of Exception and is a member of The Steady State.

All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the US Government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US Government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.

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.

Civility is the discipline that keeps conflict from becoming chaos; without it, polarization deepens, institutions erode, and leadership drifts toward instability.

A quiet erosion is underway in American public life. It does not appear in GDP reports or polling averages, but it is unmistakable in tone, in trust, and in the fraying fabric of civic interaction. It begins at the top, in the language and posture of national leadership, and cascades downward into Congress, institutions, and ultimately into the way citizens speak to one another.

Civility is often dismissed as mere politeness. That is a mistake. Civility is discipline. It is the ability to engage in serious disagreement without stripping others of dignity. It is the guardrail that allows a diverse republic to argue fiercely without coming apart. And now that guardrail is failing.

As Mary Geddry argues in her essay, “Lost the Plot, Holding the Matches,” what we are witnessing is not just a coarsening of tone, but a shift from governance to performance. The language of leadership has become louder, sharper, more theatrical—and less tethered to responsibility. Provocation replaces persuasion. Spectacle displaces substance.

Why is this happening?

First, we are operating in an attention economy that rewards outrage over reason. Political power now flows through visibility, and visibility is driven by conflict. The sharpest insult travels farther than the most careful argument. Leaders who might once have chosen restraint are pulled toward escalation because escalation is what gets seen—and increasingly, what gets rewarded.

Second, polarization has hardened into identity. Political disagreement is no longer confined to policy; it has become personal, cultural, even existential. Opponents are not merely wrong; they are framed as illegitimate or dangerous. In that environment, civility is recast as weakness, and hostility becomes a form of loyalty. We see it in the normalization, even celebration, of destruction abroad, treated not with gravity but with applause.

Third, and most consequential, there has been a collapse of norms at the highest levels of leadership. Tone is not incidental; it is set. When presidents, cabinet officials, and members of Congress model contempt, sarcasm, and impulsiveness, they legitimize it. What was once disqualifying becomes routine. What was once unthinkable becomes standard operating procedure.. This dynamic is not new. It has been observed in regimes around the world, I saw it under Manuel Noriega in Panama, where authority was maintained not through institutional trust, but through the continual projection of force and unpredictability. In such systems, restraint is seen as weakness, and civility as a liability. The result is a cycle in which authoritarian leaders feel compelled to keep raising the stakes, because standing still risks appearing diminished.

Geddry’s analysis makes clear that this erosion does not stop at our borders. It is mirrored in how the United States now projects power abroad. When foreign policy is conducted through threats, contradictions, and public displays of dominance, it ceases to be strategy and becomes performance. Diplomacy depends on credibility, consistency, and restraint—qualities that cannot survive in an environment of erratic signaling.

In Iran, demands for immediate compliance are paired with sweeping threats, as if complex nuclear negotiations could be forced into submission through volume and repetition. This is not strength. It is volatility. Civility in this context is not about courtesy; it is about control. Without it, words become destabilizing signals, and the margin for miscalculation narrows dangerously.

In Gaza, the same indiscipline manifests in another form. Humanitarian catastrophe is at risk of being reframed as logistical opportunity, reconstruction discussed in terms of systems, platforms, and managed outcomes while the human cost and aspirations? remains unresolved. When suffering is abstracted into a planning exercise, something essential has been lost. Civility demands recognition of human dignity. Without it, policy becomes transactional, and moral authority erodes.

Even among allies, the consequences are visible. Reports of opaque U.S. security involvement in Mexico—operations conducted without clear acknowledgment or coordination, underscore how quickly trust can fray when transparency and respect for sovereignty and one’s trusted interlocutors are ignored? . These are not isolated missteps; they are symptoms of a broader shift in how power is exercised.

At home, the effects are cumulative and corrosive. When incivility is modeled at the top, it spreads. Public discourse hardens. Institutions are treated with contempt. The space for good-faith disagreement shrinks. Citizens begin to mirror the tone of their leaders. The result is a political culture defined less by debate than by division.

Perhaps most damaging is the exhaustion this environment creates. A constant stream of provocation, contradiction, and escalation overwhelms the public’s capacity to process events clearly. When everything is urgent, nothing is. When outrage is constant, judgment dulls. This is not accidental; it is the byproduct of a system that thrives on overload and confusion.

Civility is not a luxury. It is not nostalgia for a gentler era. It is a prerequisite for effective leadership. It is what allows power to be exercised with legitimacy, conflict to be managed without escalation, and disagreement to occur without dehumanization.

When leadership abandons civility, the nation does not merely lose its manners.

It loses its balance.

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 had three operational deployments to Panama, Bosnia and Afghanistan. At the Defense Intelligence Agency (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 DIA, the U.S. Army, and the broader Intelligence Community.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 360 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.

Unpacking this week’s Sentinel podcast: Here’s what you need to know from a conversation that ranges from the battlefields of the MAGA media wars to the paralyzed hallways of the FBI.

In the latest episode of The Steady State Sentinel, John Sipher welcomes David Corn, Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones, MSNBC analyst, and one of the country’s most respected political reporters.

View the podcast

The MAGA Civil War Has Gone Nuclear

David Corn has been tracking the schisms inside Trump world for months, but the Iran war blew everything open. The old fault line between “America First” isolationists and pro‑Israel hawks has become a blood feud.

Tucker Carlson now suggests Trump is the anti‑Christ. Candace Owens is feuding with Charlie Kirk’s widow while pushing conspiracy theories about Macron’s wife being a man. Laura Loomer and Roger Stone are at war. Even Steve Bannon is fighting with everyone.

“Movements often end up with circular firing squads,” Corn says. “This has turned into a Mobius strip of firing squad incoming and outgoing from all across different directions.”

Corn predicts these fractures will not heal. They will only deepen as polls turn against the president and the 2028 succession fight begins.

What Is MAGA Without Trump?

Corn’s answer is blunt. MAGA is a “personality cult” built around a demagogue. Polls show that self‑identified “MAGA Republicans” remain 70‑80% supportive of the Iran war, even though it contradicts every “America First” promise. Traditional Republicans are peeling off faster.

That makes the inheritance problem for J.D. Vance almost impossible.

“The idea that J.D. Vance could just inherit this was always problematic,” Corn says. “Now it’s even more difficult because what there is to inherit is going to be divided and split up.”

Vance started laying down markers, leaking his skeptical internal memos before the war – but he hasn’t broken with Trump. And without a true break, Corn argues, he cannot claim the anti‑war, America First lane. That lane may belong to someone else entirely.

Kash Patel and the Neutering of the FBI

The FBI under Director Kash Patel is not just demoralized – it has been functionally crippled. Agents have been pulled from counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cybercrime and reassigned to immigration and street crime.

One unit, CI‑12, which handles Iran‑related counterterrorism, lost half its people just as the U.S. entered a war with Iran.

“If you’re an FBI agent and someone comes to you with a great insider trading case, the first thing you’re going to do is Google the person’s name. And if you see they attended an event at Mar‑a‑Lago, you won’t even tell your supervisor.”

Corn calls it a “get out of jail free card” for Trump’s cronies, Republican donors, and even members of Trump’s own family. The SEC, DOJ, ATF, DEA – every agency now knows that pursuing a case with any Trump connection means losing your career.

The Kremlin‑Connected FBI Director

Corn and his Mother Jones colleague Dan Friedman broke a story that should have been front‑page news: Kash Patel received a $25,000 payment from Igor Lopatonnik, a Russian‑Ukrainian‑American filmmaker who produces Kremlin propaganda and served as honorary chairman of a contest funded by Vladimir Putin’s office to encourage Westerners to move to Russia.

“A Kremlin‑connected propagandist gave the FBI director $25,000,” Corn says. “And yet I’m sure this is the first time you’re hearing about it.”

Tulsi Gabbard’s Intelligence Gaslighting

As Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard has done something Corn calls “one of the biggest acts of intelligence gaslighting and politicization of intelligence in the history of the U.S. national security community.”

She declassified old, non‑disseminated intelligence reports, raw information that had been rejected by analysts years ago – and presented them as proof that the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment about Russian interference was a “hoax” and an act of “treason” by Obama, Biden, and Clinton.

The problem? Those reports only addressed whether Russia hacked voting machines (they didn’t). They said nothing about the influence operation – the hacking and leaking of emails, the social media disinformation campaign – that the ICA actually documented.

“It takes about ten seconds to say this doesn’t make sense,” Corn says. “They get away with a pretty lousy con job.”

The Chilling Effect on National Security Reporting

Corn is finishing a book called How Russia Won about the fight over the 2016 narrative and Russia’s ongoing interference. But when he tries to talk to former CIA, FBI, and State Department officials, he finds a new wall of fear.

People who left the government years ago are afraid to speak – even off the record – because Trump has shown he will go after individuals by name, subpoena them, and pressure their employers. Other national security reporters tell Corn the same thing: sourcing has dried up.

“When subpoenas are flying, people duck. They keep their heads down. Trump is so vindictive. It used to be, when you’re out, you’re out. Now your boss calls you in and says, ‘You’re in the news. We don’t want people in the news.’”

About David Corn

David Corn is one of the few reporters who has been inside every major political scandal of the last three decades – and he is not slowing down. His newsletter, @our-land Our Land, is a must‑read for anyone trying to track the daily convulsions of the right. His upcoming book, How Russia Won, promises to be the definitive account of how Trump and his allies successfully buried the truth about 2016.

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.