Tag Archive for: National Security

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.

Powered by WPeMatico

This week the Steady State zeroes in the misperception that what looks like political turbulence is in fact a structural drift; the repeated normalization of institutional overreach, manipulation of truth, and declining restraint across government and civic life is gradually hollowing out the guardrails of American democracy.


Read more…


THE ESSENTIALS


TRENDING

If paying an informant inside a group means you “funded” that group, then the FBI has been funding every criminal network it has ever infiltrated. Obviously that is absurd.

Follow us on LinkedIn and your favorite platforms.


#HOLDFAST

Leave a comment

Listen to the Sentinel podcast

Share 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.

Powered by WPeMatico

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.

Powered by WPeMatico

The real “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is not found among his critics, but in the persistent denial of reality, normalization of falsehoods, and cult-like behavior surrounding the former president and his movement.

These are tumultuous times, even a time of war. Sorting truth from falsehood, fact from fiction, is a daily challenge. This is particularly true as we try to understand the actions and motivations of President Trump, his public spokespersons, and his MAGA supporters.

A constant theme of President Trump: all who criticize him suffer from “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” The public debate would clearly benefit from a closer look at this so-called TDS, what derangement is, and who is really suffering from it. The President has offered his own definition, whose hypocrisy leaves heads scratching.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines derangement as ”the state of being completely unable to think clearly or behave in a controlled way, especially because of mental illness”. Webster’s listed synonyms include “instability, paranoia, dementia, and delusion.” These are strong words.

Let’s start with an irrefutable fact. There was no meaningful electoral fraud in the national elections of 2016, 2020, or 2024. The president and his representatives continue to assert electoral fraud despite his refusal at the October 19., 2016 debate with Clinton in Las Vegas to commit to accepting the results of the 2016 election, his administration’s clumsy effort and failure to document fraud via its Kobach Commission, and the 60 some court cases validating the Biden electoral victory in 2020. For Trump and his administration, “electoral fraud” continues even today as a foundational element of their relentless campaign to undercut public trust in our electoral process and institutions, while at the same time asserting non-existent “landslides” in the two presidential elections he won. This strategy is, of course, directly lifted from the authoritarian handbook: Lie, Lie in a big way; Repeat until people don’t question it.

You have to ask who is deranged in this circumstance. It is reasonable to conclude that those who assert non-existent electoral fraud are, as the synonyms go, paranoid or deluded. If President Trump is not, one is driven to conclude that his electoral fraud assertion is a cold and crass political strategy to manipulate unwitting voters, the kind that he had in mind when he confidently broadcast that “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and not lose any voters,” a line delivered to adoring laughter at an Iowa rally in January 2016.

And there is the White House social media effort, anchored by the disingenuously named Truth Social, the president’s personal social media platform that serves increasingly as the principal communications voice of the U.S. government. One has to ask who is deranged, paranoid, or deluded as one scrolls through “Truth” Social’s range of bizarre assertions, photos, and video clips, many screaming derangement, paranoia, and delusion.

Take, for example, the self-published picture of the President as Pope, put out on the White House twitter feed and the various “Truth Social” posts asserting that “He’s on a mission from God”, “I was saved to save the country”, and “Trump was Right about Everything,” the latter now a campaign slogan promoted via his signature red ball caps. Few posts are presidential in nature, none bolster his or the country’s prestige, and many assert his incredulous refrain “I alone can. And there is the plethora of vitriolic attacks by the president on critics, business executives, perceived enemies, fellow “Republicans” and even foreign leaders with whom he needs to work to promote U.S. interests and security.

Beyond ominous has been Trump’s renaming and signature blitzkrieg, the Institute of Peace to the Trump Institute of Peace, the John F. Kennedy Center to the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Center, TrumpRx, “Trump accounts” for US citizen newborns from 2025-2028, putting his picture on gold coins and National Park Service annual passes, calling the proposed next generation fighter the F-47 in honor of Trump 47 and new battleships “Trump class”, and having his signature on the US dollar. Equally odorous, there is the marketing and selling of “Trump Fragrances.” Again, this is evidence of a syndrome exhibited by all autocrats to reinforce the impression that they are “everywhere” and “everything.” ,

Many of the MAGA supporters with whom I have spoken over the years say they don’t follow the X or Truth Social posts, perhaps so that they can continue to support the president without the clutter of dealing with constant bewilderment over emanations from the White House.

What is the appropriate treatment for TDS?

A consequential MAGA defeat in the November midterm elections would be sound initial shock treatment to fight this disease. Or, given MAGA courtiers’ blind adherence to the Trump 47 cult, the most immediate treatment would be if a handful of Republican senators and representatives simply owned up and said what is on everyone’s mind, “what’s with this over-the-top MAGAlomania?” (Webster’s on megalomania: “a delusional mental illness that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur.”)

Alternatively a miraculous display of honest reckoning by a sycophantic cabinet via the 25th Amendment, offers a more definitive course of treatment.

In any case, years will be needed for full recovery.

America deserves a hard look at both TDS and the person who sadly brought it to us. And MAGA, it’s time to face the honest truth, social or otherwise.

Mike Mozur is a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer with over 33 years of experience in the Soviet Union, former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Latin America. He also led a global professional association of environmental scientists and writes periodically on current political, economic, and social issues. 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.

Powered by WPeMatico

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.

Podcast title The MAGA Crack-Up: David Corn on Iran, the FBI, and a Democracy Under Siege

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.

Powered by WPeMatico

AI Generated Graphic

A poorly informed electorate makes it easier to vilify public servants, dismantle expertise, and replace governance with self-serving power.

The tumult of recent years has illuminated how little the average citizen knows about the United States government and the people who perform its functions. As politicians continue to slash civil service jobs and programs with pledges to eliminate “government waste,” it has become abundantly clear that many Americans don’t know how much those programs and people affect their everyday lives. The country has become susceptible to inaccurate and dangerous rhetoric because people don’t know what they don’t know; attacking the government during every election season becomes easier amidst this misunderstanding.

While the “deep state bureaucrat” meme is pervasive, most government employees do not remotely fit that profile. Someone who decides to become a civil servant, either in government or the military, most often does so because they feel called to improve or protect some aspect of American life. They want to fix problems and see systems operating smoothly so that everyone can benefit equally. Devotion to duty, social responsibility, and the common good are qualities that motivate the vast majority of public servants each day.

This set of values differentiates public service from the mentality that guides much of corporate America. The desire to make money is an admirable, productive, and essential trait in the commercial sector. Profitable businesses provide jobs and grow the economy. Successful entrepreneurs can better the lives of others by creating opportunities, providing services to communities, and developing innovative solutions. Profit motives, however, are not compatible with the missions and means required to lead and govern a country.

This incompatibility can become a problem when someone whose primary goal is to profit for themselves gets elected to an office of public trust and does not shift their objectives. Profit-making is predominantly organization- or self-centered. Public service, by its very definition, should be other-centered. It’s about serving the country and its people by upholding laws, institutions, and procedures designed to improve life for all. Tax dollars are the fuel for governmental functions, not for padding the bank accounts of politicians and their families. In this respect, Donald Trump and his family have allegedly accrued over $4 billion in combined profits and paper wealth since Trump’s return to office in January 2025.

Many Americans ignored the incompatibility of the private sector-public service traits in the last election, thinking that a “good businessperson” will make a good President. This assumption is dangerous, as illustrated by our current situation. The government is not a business. It must balance the needs of many different, often complex and competing, constituencies and interests while protecting rights, providing public goods and services, and operating under the rule of law within Constitutionally-mandated checks and balances constraints. When the government does well, public safety increases; citizens enjoy fair justice and greater opportunity, and most of all, people feel more secure. That, not profit margin, must be the goal of governance.

This is not to say that one cannot be both a successful businessperson and an excellent government administrator. History is replete with impressive examples of politicians who made both the transition and a difference. But, while business acumen is an asset, it is far from being determinative of success in navigating the complex set of tasks required to lead and manage public institutions.

A cabinet filled with people who have amassed wealth from private sector endeavors but are now in the public sector, and who disparage, ignore, or purge career expertise, and refuse to work with anyone other than ideological acolytes, is highly unlikely to produce the positive outcomes good government demands. Judged on results, the collective business acumen of these cabinet members (if that was, in fact, the source of their wealth) has failed to deliver anything resembling good governance. In reality, governing is hard, often opaque, and thankless work. It requires focus and attention. It demands that you spend time reading, listening to experts, collaborating, and communicating. It demands a set of values that places the common good above self-interest and conveys a deep respect for our government structures.

Voters, therefore, bear a profound responsibility. It is not enough to choose leaders who are entertaining at rallies, charismatic on television, or constantly trending online. Nor is it enough to assume that wealth, especially when combined with race and gender privileges, signals competence or moral fitness for office. In America, if you want to do just about any honest work, at any level of responsibility, from practicing law or medicine to teaching school to becoming a plumber, you will need experience. Experience to learn, experience to grow, and experience to know that the job you are about to do requires knowledge you don’t have.

If Americans demand it, we can have better leaders. Leaders who know how to protect and improve institutions rather than attack them for fun and profit. People who know that governing our great nation is complicated, and that we should listen to smart people who know more about certain topics than we do. People who view the office of the president as a public service, not a moneymaking scheme. We deserve leaders who understand that loyalty to the country is stronger than loyalty to a person.

We, the people, are the government. If we choose leaders with relevant experience who value dignity over demagoguery and exhibit humility over greed, we can have a government that we deserve. And we can have a democracy that wealth, fame, and wannabe TV titans won’t destroy.

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.

Powered by WPeMatico

AI Generated Graphic

The focus on partisanship is distracting from a more serious threat: the weakening of democratic checks and balances.

I have published multiple negative essays and commentaries regarding our current president and the damage done by both him and his appointed band of sycophant grifters, especially in his second incarnation. Those many pieces ended up in various places on the Internet. Recently, I received a kind-hearted message from a person that I did not know informing me that my written work would no longer be shown on a certain Facebook group site. The reason stated was that my positions were too one-sided and appeared to politically favor Democrats. When I wrote the above-mentioned published works, though, I was thinking about this chief executive’s criminality and incompetence. This reflects a major misunderstanding because the labels simply no longer apply, if they ever did.

Our focus on partisan divides and tribal affiliations bearing the logos of either conservative or liberal, Left or Right, Red or Blue has blinded us to the actual problem we collectively face: Our founding instruments are under assault. The rule of law, a key tenet of our republic, has been ignored. Our democratic institutions have been undermined. These are not partisan philosophies or programs. These represent the heart and soul of our nation: Our democracy, rule of law, and constitution are not up for debate.

Rule of Law Trampled

This administration has used a once independent and constitutionally mandated Department of Justice (DOJ) for his personal vengeance: threatening political enemies; firing multiple career FBI agents who legitimately investigated this president’s mishandling of classified documents; terminated several career DOJ lawyers because they assisted in developing two criminal cases against him. He has hamstrung the FBI’s counterintelligence capabilities with regard to Russia and China, and hobbled civil rights in the streets of America. Further, he continually ignores court orders and has promised to pardon those who break the law in his service. This Oval Office knows no rule of law.

The Constitution Under Assault

Having taken the oath to “support and defend,” this chief executive ignored the Emoluments Clauses of that document and accepted lavish gifts, including a “presidential jet” of all things, from foreign powers. He attempted to circumvent Birthright Citizenship through executive order. He authorized mass deportations in contravention of the 5th Amendment pertaining to due process. He took steps to intimidate (muzzle) news media via violations of the 1st Amendment. He illegally established tariffs on the importations of overseas goods. Please note that this list is not exhaustive.

Democratic Institutions Undermined

This president has appointed unqualified sycophants to cabinet positions and fired senior and mid-level civil servants throughout the government, ensuring he will receive no information or expert counsel that runs counter to his personal initiatives. In short, the pre-existing guardrails within the executive branch no longer exist, leaving him free to pursue his authoritarian ambitions without restraint.

This has real-world consequences. To name but a few policies emanating from this chief executive: eliminated vaccination guidelines that led to the first outbreak of measles in decades; initiated tax policies that have raised the national debt, now exceeding annual GDP; engaged in military adventurism in Venezuela and Iran and threatened the same over Greenland; abandoned NATO and other allies who shared our (former) democratic principles in favor of supporting autocratic regimes abroad. The man, clearly corrupt and seemingly at the front end of a serious mental decline, unleashed an utterly unnecessary tiff with the Pope in Rome.

In all this, Mr. Trump is enabled by a congressional majority which also took an oath to support and defend our Constitution. Instead, they have acquiesced to the “Unitary Executive,” compliant while abrogating their constitutional responsibilities as an equal branch of government. Seldom in the history of our nation has one political party been so clearly guilty of cowardice, losing sight of the “common good” and service to country rather than to party.

No, it’s not about Red or Blue anymore.

Robert Bruce Adolph , a qualified Military Strategist, is a retired senior US Army Special Forces soldier. He holds graduate degrees in both National Security Studies & International Affairs and was formally trained as a counterintelligence special agent. Robert also taught university level courses in American Government, US History, and World Politics. Following his retirement from the active military, he joined the UN, subsequently seeing service in Sierra Leone, Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, Israel/Palestine, Indonesia and more, culminating in the role of Chief of the Middle East and North Africa at UN Headquarters in New York. He is the author of “Surviving the United Nations,” now out in a second edition. 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.

Powered by WPeMatico

Former CIA officer John Sipher sits down for the latest Sentinel podcast with David Corn, Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones and one of the nation’s most respected political journalists. They dive deep into the explosive schisms within MAGA world triggered by the Iran war, from Tucker Carlson accusing Trump of being the anti‑Christ to escalating feuds between figures like Megyn Kelly and Mark Levin.

Corn explains why the FBI under Kash Patel has been gutted of counterterrorism expertise, how a reportedly Kremlin‑connected propagandist gave Patel $25,000, and why career national security officials are now terrified to speak with reporters. The conversation also covers RFK Jr.’s dangerous tenure at HHS, Tulsi Gabbard’s politicization of intelligence, and the media’s struggle to cover an administration that lies as a strategy. Corn offers a sobering assessment of American democracy’s fragility—and where he still finds hope.

David Corn is the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones and a longtime national security and political journalist. He has covered presidents, scandals, and the rise of the modern right for more than three decades. He is the author of several books, including Russian Roulette (with Michael Isikoff) and the forthcoming How Russia Won. His newsletter, R‑Land, is available at davidcorn.com. You can find him on Bluesky at @davidcorn and on Signal at DavidCorn99.

View the transcript and watch the full podcast 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.

Powered by WPeMatico

The MAGA Crack-Up: David Corn on Iran, the FBI, and a Democracy Under Siege

Conspiracy Narratives, Media Challenges, and the Long Shadow of Russian Influence

Former CIA officer John Sipher sits down with David Corn, Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones and one of the nation’s most respected political journalists. They dive deep into the explosive schisms within MAGA world triggered by the Iran war, from Tucker Carlson accusing Trump of being the anti‑Christ to escalating feuds between figures like Megyn Kelly and Mark Levin. Corn explains why the FBI under Kash Patel has been gutted of counterterrorism expertise, how a reportedly Kremlin‑connected propagandist gave Patel $25,000, and why career national security officials are now terrified to speak with reporters. The conversation also covers RFK Jr.’s dangerous tenure at HHS, Tulsi Gabbard’s politicization of intelligence, and the media’s struggle to cover an administration that lies as a strategy. Corn offers a sobering assessment of American democracy’s fragility—and where he still finds hope.

Author info:

David Corn is the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones and a longtime national security and political journalist. He has covered presidents, scandals, and the rise of the modern right for more than three decades. He is the author of several books, including Russian Roulette (with Michael Isikoff) and the forthcoming How Russia Won. His newsletter, R‑Land, is available at davidcorn.com. You can find him on Blue Sky at @davidcorn and on Signal at DavidCorn99.

Transcript – assisted by AI

John Sipher (00:36.186):
Today’s guest is David Corn. David is one of the country’s best-known political journalists and a longtime Washington reporter who has covered presidents, scandals, national security, and the rise of the modern right for decades. He’s now the Washington bureau chief for *Mother Jones*, and his reporting is consistently focused on power, corruption, disinformation, and the health of American democracy. So David, welcome to the podcast.

David Corn (00:59.342):
Good to be with you, John.

John Sipher (01:00.748):
Yeah, it’s good to see you. God, it’s a crazy time and there’s almost too much to talk about. Let me start with some of the stuff you’ve written about lately. You’ve been writing about the schisms in MAGA land for a while. So what has been the impact of the Iran war on these various MAGA influencers? Because I see various odd conspiracies being spread by folks like Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Mark Levin, Laura Loomer, Megyn Kelly, Joe Kent—all this kind of stuff. A lot of them seem to have changed or are reacting in different ways. What do you see happening based on what’s happening in Iran?

David Corn (01:38.686):
You do not have the time to get a full explanation of what’s going on in MAGA land on this. Movements often end up with circular firing squads—we’ve seen that on the right and the left. This has turned into a Möbius strip of a firing squad, with incoming and outgoing attacks from all directions in Trump land.

You see people like Mark Levin, very pro–Iran war and pro-Israel, getting into a fight with Megyn Kelly, who supported Trump but is now opposed to the war. It’s gotten extremely vicious. Tucker Carlson has kind of led the way, and we saw this even before the Iran war. There was already a split between “America First” isolationists and pro-Israel hawks within MAGA.

Now the Iran war has blown that divide wide open. Tucker has even broken with Trump, suggesting extreme conspiracy theories, while also making arguments that resonate across political lines. At the same time, figures like Laura Loomer are attacking Tucker for criticizing Trump. Others—Roger Stone, Steve Bannon—are feuding as well.

I wrote about this in my newsletter, but it would take thousands of words to map it fully. It’s real, it’s not going away, and I think it’s bad news for Trump and Republicans. It may not immediately impact elections, but it shows fractures that will have consequences moving forward.

John Sipher (06:37.614):
Is Trump weighing in on either side? Or is he ignoring it?

David Corn (06:43.896):
I think he’s a little busy at the moment. He hasn’t really taken on Tucker yet, which is significant given their relationship. He may address it later, but for now he’s focused elsewhere. Still, this isn’t something that will be patched up easily—it’s likely to worsen, especially if political pressures increase.

John Sipher (08:17.73):
That leads to a bigger question looking toward 2028: is MAGA more than Donald Trump? It doesn’t seem like a consistent ideology.

David Corn (08:38.26):
That’s exactly the question—and part of this fight is about defining MAGA. It’s largely a personality-driven movement. Historically, we’ve seen similar movements centered around figures rather than ideology.

Polling suggests that while “America First” implies isolationism, many MAGA Republicans still support the war. That shows a divide between ideological “America Firsters” and those who simply follow Trump’s lead. MAGA remains, in many ways, a political cult of personality.

As Trump moves in different directions, some supporters will peel away. That’s what we’re seeing now.

John Sipher (10:43.416):
That makes it harder for someone like JD Vance to inherit the movement.

David Corn (11:02.904):
Exactly. It was always going to be difficult, and now even more so because the movement itself is fragmenting. There’s no clear ideological core to inherit.

John Sipher (13:19.502):
You’ve written about Kash Patel—what should we know about his leadership of the FBI?

David Corn (13:30.242):
Morale is reportedly very low. Agents are being reassigned away from their expertise, and key units are being weakened. There’s also a chilling effect—agents may avoid pursuing cases tied to political figures out of fear of repercussions.

Additionally, Patel’s past connections—including payments from a filmmaker linked to Kremlin-aligned messaging—raise serious concerns. This hasn’t received as much attention as it should.

John Sipher (23:03.31):
Are people more willing to leak information under these conditions?

David Corn (23:16.652):
Actually, no. It’s gotten harder. People are more fearful due to subpoenas and retaliation. Even former officials are reluctant to speak, which is unusual compared to previous years.

John Sipher (24:51.874):
What about RFK Jr.?

David Corn (25:18.052):
He has consistently made claims that don’t hold up under scrutiny. During confirmation hearings, he made assurances he hasn’t kept. His positions on public health and conspiracy theories have had significant consequences.

John Sipher (29:39.758):
What’s your take on the media overall?

David Corn (30:09.07):
There’s been strong reporting, but also structural challenges—fewer reporters, too many stories, and difficulty keeping up with the volume of events. There’s also a tendency toward neutral language that can obscure the severity of certain actions.

The “firehose” of information makes it hard to contextualize events, and the traditional model of balancing “both sides” struggles when dealing with misinformation.

John Sipher (35:56.706):
And Tulsi Gabbard?

David Corn (36:19.774):
She has taken positions that align with various controversial narratives and lacks experience in intelligence leadership. Her actions, particularly regarding declassification and interpretation of intelligence, have raised serious concerns about politicization.

John Sipher (45:21.858):
Before we go, what are you working on?

David Corn (45:32.836):
People can find me on Blue Sky or X, and my newsletter is at davidkorn.com. I’m finishing a book titled *How Russia Won*, about the messaging battle over election interference and its aftermath. I’m also continuing to report on the internal conflicts within MAGA.

John Sipher (46:42.166):
You’ve been doing this a long time—you’re a great reporter. I encourage people to follow your work. And for the audience, if you like what you’re hearing, please subscribe to *The Steady State Sentinel*, follow our content, and leave a five-star review. Stay informed, stay engaged, and join us next week.

The Steady State is a nonprofit organization working to sustain our democracy and national security. Join us and support our mission by visiting www.thesteadystate.org.

War does not suspend the law—the principles of distinction, necessity, proportionality, and humanity are not optional, and abandoning them carries real strategic and moral consequences.

In the several weeks since the United States and Israel attacked Iran, the President and Secretary of Defense have announced on a number of occasions that we are winning the war even as the air campaign continues. The President and the Secretary of Defense have identified bombing Iran “back to the Stone Age” as a strategic goal. The Secretary has talked about “giving no quarter” to the enemy and denigrated the need for Rules of Engagement and the requirements of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). It is in this context that a brief discussion of IHL, also referred to as the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), might help frame the conversation.

AI Generated Graphic

The core principles of IHL clearly apply to the war in Iran, as all three parties to the conflict are legally bound to follow IHL. The four basic principles of IHL (distinction, military necessity, proportionality and humanity) are established in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977. These principles seek to provide a legal framework under which armed forces will strive to focus on military targets and limit collateral damage to both people and property to the greatest extent possible.

The implementation of IHL in practice involves difficult and controversial judgments that weigh military necessity against likely collateral damage, to include civilian deaths. Unlike much of our war experience since 9/11 against terrorist and insurgent groups in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, our war with Iran is much more of a traditional conflict against a state actor. Iran is likewise bound by IHL, and any violation of IHL by either side is a potential war crime.

Distinction.

The principle of distinction, added to the Geneva Conventions by the 1977 Additional Protocols, requires parties to a conflict to always distinguish between civilians and combatants, and direct operations only against military targets. Distinction is the most humanitarian of the basic principles, in that it requires military forces at all times to distinguish between military and non-military personnel and military and non-military targets

The principle of distinction covers not only people, but also places. Certain areas, including hospitals and schools, are presumed to be protected from military attack. Protected sites may lose their protected status if they are used for military purposes. Other sites, such as bridges, are of both civilian and military use. In such cases, the burden is on the side making the attack to make the military case for the strike.

Military Necessity

Military Necessity allows all measures necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose so long as these measures are not otherwise prohibited by IHL. It is a legitimate military purpose to defeat the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible, but military necessity does not allow disproportionate or indiscriminate targeting, nor does it allow activities whose purpose is to spread terror among a civilian population. As stated in Rule 54 of the Additional Protocols, an attacking force is not permitted to destroy “objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.” Heated rhetoric directed at making Iran uninhabitable calls into question the underlying purpose of continuing air attacks and only invites similar retaliation from Iran.

Proportionality

Proportionality recognizes that incidental harm will occur to civilians during military operations. As with the principle of distinction, proportionality as a concept asks the question of whether anticipated harm to the civilian population is “excessive” relative to the military advantage that is anticipated from the military action. In general, proportionality requires judging each attack on its own merits. In a campaign as massive as the current US and Israel bombing campaign, proportionality judgments must be made countless times each day, highlighting the importance of Rules of Engagement. Because proportionality assumes collateral damage, an objective assessment of whether projected military advantage outweighs anticipated damage to civilian life and infrastructure is a difficult but necessary decision.

Humanity.

The fourth IHL principle is humanity, found at Article 35, which has two major provisions. The first prohibits the use of weapons intended to cause “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” The second prohibits employing methods intended or likely to cause widespread and long-term severe damage to the natural environment. The harsh environment of the Middle East means that populations require desalinization plants to meet water needs and electricity to power air conditioning as a matter of survival for much of the region’s population. In this way, the principle of humanity is related to military necessity.

IHL provides a legal framework under which nations have agreed to conduct military action. The US military has always taken IHL requirements seriously, even as other nations (e.g. Russia) do not. The US military has always prided itself on respecting IHL as a means of effective and honorable warfare. We can only hope that the inappropriate rhetoric emanating from the White House and the Pentagon does not alter the conduct of our uniformed men and women who are fighting this war.

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.

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.

Powered by WPeMatico