U.S. Intelligence and National Security 2025

Intelligence and National Security Journal

21 March
The latest release of Kennedy assassination records offers intrigue — and lots of breadcrumbs
Historians find threads to pull on about America’s secret government, mail snooping and more.
(WaPo) … Jefferson Morley, a former Washington Post editor and reporter…[has] been studying the Kennedy files for years and wrote an expansive biography in 2017 on James Angleton, the CIA’s counterintelligence chief who’d been tracking Oswald before Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.
On Thursday, Morley published a startling conclusion on the Substack page that he edits, JFKFacts: “The fact pattern emerging from the new JFK documents shows that: A small clique in CIA counterintelligence was responsible for JFK’s assassination.”
… Morley’s chief interest continues to be Angleton — the protagonist of his years-long book investigation, a man who spent his career hunting for CIA officers secretly working for the Soviets.
“I’m not saying that [Angleton] was the mastermind of the assassination. But he was the mastermind behind Oswald,” Morley said Thursday night during his open Zoom call. “The failure of Angleton to intercept or do anything about Oswald at the same time that he’s running operations around him — that combination, yes — that tells me Angleton played a complicit role in Kennedy’s assassination.”
As Morley began scanning this week’s release, he happened upon numerous records that fed his interpretation of the case.
19 March
Classified Documents: What’s in the New Kennedy Files? Spies. State Secrets. No Second Gunman.
(NYT) Newly unredacted documents mostly shed light on C.I.A. sources and methods. The Justice Department is moving to disclose new details about surveillance of Martin Luther King Jr.
The release of about 64,000 documents about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on Tuesday [18 March] started a race to find a revelation, as journalists, historians and amateur sleuths scoured the pages in hopes of finding something, anything, that could be considered consequential.
Instead, the big reveal was that there wasn’t much of a reveal at all. Here are the biggest takeaways of the blockbuster that wasn’t. …
As historians and reporters sift through the more than 62,000 pages of documents the National Archives posted online last night, it’s worth revisiting the origins of the vast trove they are coming from. In 1992, after the Oliver Stone film “JFK” renewed interest in conspiracy theories about the assassination, Congress ordered that all records relating to the death of President Kennedy be gathered in one place.
That led to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection, housed at a National Archives facility in Maryland, which now includes some six million pages of records. Most were released long ago, but thousands were held back or redacted. In 2017, President Trump ordered the archives to release the rest, in keeping with the 1992 law’s 25-year deadline. Between 2017 and 2023, there were four releases. Last night’s drop was the latest, but it remains unclear if it will really be the last. …
Jennifer Schuessler
My eye was caught by some C.I.A. documents mentioning Tad Szulc, the New York Times foreign correspondent who in 1961 broke the story of the impending Bay of Pigs invasion. One 1962 memo from a station officer in Brazil, where Szulc partly grew up, notes that the station’s copies of files on Szulc have been destroyed.
Jennifer Schuessler
Another document, from 1976, discusses Szulc’s daughter’s collaboration with Philip Agee, a former C.I.A. officer who wrote an exposé of the agency. Szulc, who died in 2001, is well known to have been of keen interest to the C.I.A., who saw him as “anti-agency” and circulated innuendo that he was a “hostile foreign agent.”

25 April
Hegseth’s Personal Phone Use Created Vulnerabilities
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s personal phone number, the one used in a recent Signal chat, was easily accessible on the internet and public apps as recently as March, potentially exposing national security secrets to foreign adversaries.
The phone number could be found in a variety of places, including WhatsApp, Facebook and a fantasy sports site. It was the same number through which the defense secretary, using the Signal commercial messaging app, disclosed flight data for American strikes on the Houthi militia in Yemen.
Cybersecurity analysts said an American defense secretary’s communications device would usually be among the most protected national security assets.

20-21 April
Kristi Noem’s Bag, With Security Badge and $3,000, Is Stolen
The homeland security secretary was dining at a Washington, D.C., restaurant. She also lost her passport and keys.
As homeland security secretary, Ms. Noem runs a department that is in charge of the nation’s security. Its responsibilities include border control and immigration, terrorism protection and cybersecurity.
Watchdog Group Asks Judge to Preserve Signal Chats by Top Trump Officials
The request by American Oversight came after revelations that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared information on upcoming strikes in more than one group chat.
The Pentagon Is in a State of Confusion
By Jonathan Lemire
(The Atlantic) Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth shared sensitive attack plans in a Signal group chat. No, not that one—a different one. Some of his top Pentagon aides have been ousted, but few in the building are sure what for, or even by whom. And the talk in Washington revolves around who might be on the short list to replace him, even as President Donald Trump delivered a firm defense of Hegseth today while standing a few feet away from a giant bunny.
That surreal sight—at the White House Easter Egg Roll this morning—seemed oddly fitting on a day when the world’s largest military was enveloped in a level of dysfunction that bordered on the comical, except for the hundreds of billions of dollars of fighter jets and tanks involved. An organization dependent on clear lines of communication was in a state of confusion, while questions surrounding Hegseth’s fitness for the post that first surfaced during his contentious confirmation became relevant again.
Hegseth Said to Have Shared Attack Details in Second Signal Chat
The defense secretary sent sensitive information about strikes in Yemen to an encrypted group chat that included his wife and brother, people familiar with the matter said.
Sensitive documents, including White House floor plans, improperly shared with thousands
The inadvertent sharing of a Google Drive folder with the entire staff of the General Services Administration was the latest instance of sloppy handling of sensitive documents under both Biden and Trump.

8 April
Clint Hill remembered as the devoted agent who ran to JFK’s car in Dallas
Secret Service agent Hill hurled himself atop President John F. Kennedy’s uncovered limousine when Lee Harvey Oswald opened fire in November 1963.
Under the stained glass and towering arch ceilings of Washington National Cathedral, hundreds of Secret Service members paid their respects Tuesday to an agent who came to symbolize the elite agency’s commitment to bravery and sacrifice in the face of danger.
His attempts to shield Kennedy and first lady Jacqueline Kennedy from the shots that killed the president inspired thousands of Secret Service agents who came after him, while the experience left Hill, who died Feb. 21 at his home in Belvedere, California, at age 93, with a deep guilt that haunted him late into his life.

5 April
Trump Weakens U.S. Cyberdefenses at a Moment of Rising Danger
The firing of the head of the National Security Agency was only the latest move that has eroded the country’s fortifications against cyberattacks, especially those targeting elections.
By David E. Sanger [who] has written extensively on the intersection of national security and cyberweapons. Nick Corasaniti has covered election security for six years.
(NYT) When President Trump abruptly fired the head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command on Thursday, it was the latest in a series of moves that have torn away at the country’s cyberdefenses just as they are confronting the most sophisticated and sustained attacks in the nation’s history.
The commander, General Timothy D. Haugh, had sat atop the enormous infrastructure of American cyberdefenses until his removal, apparently under pressure from the far-right Trump loyalist Laura Loomer. He had been among the American officials most deeply involved in pushing back on Russia, dating to his work countering Moscow’s interference in the 2016 election.
A deeply ominous week for the spy agencies
David Ignatius
Injecting politics into professional intelligence gathering won’t keep Americans safe.
… Politicization is a special poison for intelligence and national security officials. It skews judgment and encourages false or misleading reporting. It rewards those who curry favor and punishes those who tell the truth. Eventually, it leads to paralysis, as officials become fearful of taking any step that could get them into trouble.
This poison is now leaching into the intelligence community, following interventions by the White House over the past week that have derailed experienced professionals at the NSA, the NSC and the CIA. The victims aren’t part of some imaginary “deep state.” They are veteran officials of the agencies that protect Americans from catastrophe.
… While national security adviser Michael Waltz listened helplessly, [Laura Loomer] attacked members of his team who would be gone just over 24 hours later. Waltz survived, along with his embattled deputy, Alex Wong. But it will be hard for Waltz to run an effective interagency process if he can’t manage his own staff without interference.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe also seems handcuffed by political pressure. He had selected Ralph Goff, a widely respected retired officer and six-time station chief, to head the directorate of operations, which runs spy activities abroad. The choice was popular with current CIA officers and the agency’s vocal alumni group. … On Monday, rumors began circulating that Goff was out, and by Wednesday, Politico had published a story that his nomination had been withdrawn. CIA morale, already shaken, was rocked by the news. One former officer who spoke with several colleagues at Langley explained that the incident was seen as “a reflection that Ratcliffe has absolutely no sway with the White House.

Trump Fires 6 N.S.C. Officials After Oval Office Meeting With Laura Loomer
During the 30-minute meeting, the far-right activist excoriated National Security Council officials in front of the president and Michael Waltz, the national security adviser.
-Laura Loomer has been part of a group effort by some Trump allies to disparage members of the White House staff whom they consider fundamentally at odds with the president’s “America First” foreign policy.
The firings were described by one of the U.S. officials, who had direct knowledge of the matter. The decision came after Ms. Loomer vilified the staff members by name during a meeting on Wednesday, when she walked into the White House with a sheaf of papers attacking the character and loyalty of numerous N.S.C. officials. Michael Waltz, the national security adviser, joined later in the meeting and briefly defended some of his staff, though it was clear he had little if any power to protect their jobs.
It was a remarkable spectacle: Ms. Loomer, who has floated the baseless conspiracy theory that the Sept. 11 attacks were an “inside job” and is viewed as extreme by even some of Mr. Trump’s far-right allies, was apparently wielding more influence over the staff of the National Security Council than Mr. Waltz, who runs the agency.
— It is unclear what the firings mean for Michael Waltz, the national security adviser, who has a tenuous hold on his own job —
A look at Laura Loomer, longtime Trump ally criticized for racist posts and Sept. 11 conspiracies

2 April
Waltz’s team set up at least 20 Signal group chats for crises across the world
It’s a more extensive use of the app than previously reported and sheds new light on how commonly the Trump administration’s national security team relies on Signal.
(Politico) National security adviser Mike Waltz’s team regularly set up chats on Signal to coordinate official work on issues including Ukraine, China, Gaza, Middle East policy, Africa and Europe, according to four people who have been personally added to Signal chats.
Two of the people said they were in or have direct knowledge of at least 20 such chats. All four said they saw instances of sensitive information being discussed.

30 March
Goldberg says it’s ‘not true’ that he and Waltz never spoke prior to Signal leak: Full interview (video)
(NBC) In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, disputes the idea he had never met national security adviser Mike Waltz before being added to a Signal chat with top government officials.

27 March
Are intelligence analysts still doing their jobs? We just got an answer.
David Ignatius
The emphasis has changed to suit the president’s priorities, but fact-based analysis remains paramount
(WaPo) …how Trump’s priorities are reshaping the presentation of intelligence comes in the 30-page threat assessment document that Gabbard shared with Congress.
Compared with last year’s version, the assessment shows a different ordering of threats to emphasize drug criminals, a new focus on Greenland, and discussion of the Ukraine war that accords with Trump’s negotiating strategy.
Intelligence analysts take pride in their nonpartisan professionalism, and there’s no indication they have been pressured to change any specific evidence. Much of the underlying analysis of Russia, China, Iran and other topics is consistent with last year’s assessment, with some passages repeated verbatim. But a comparison of the 2024 and 2025 assessments shows that priorities can shift, for better or worse, depending on who’s in power.

24-26 March
US war plans leak shows Five Eyes allies must ‘look out for ourselves’, says Mark Carney
Signal blunder likely to put strain on Five Eyes as it weighs how Trump administration handles classified information
Leyland Cecco in Toronto and Eva Corlett in Wellington
(The Guardian) Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney, has said the inadvertent leak of classified military plans by senior US officials means that allied nations must increasingly “look out for ourselves” as trust frays with a once-close ally.
Speaking a day after it was revealed that a journalist was accidentally included in a group chat discussing airstrikes against Yemeni rebels, Carney said the intelligence blunder was a “serious, serious issue and all lessons must be taken”. He said it would be critical to see “how people react to those mistakes and how they tighten them up”.
Canada is one of the members of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network, alongside Australia, New Zealand and the UK and the leak of classified information is likely to put further strain on the group as it weighs how seriously the current American administration takes the handling of top secret information.

How the Signal transcript undermines key Trump administration claims
The transcript undermines the claims that they weren’t “war plans” and testimony from key figures that they didn’t recall discussions of weapons or timing.
(WaPo) At the end of Tuesday’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Georgia) offered a warning to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Gabbard and Ratcliffe had danced around questions about the administration’s discussion of military plans on an unsecure app that inadvertently included a journalist.
“And by the way, we will get the full transcript of this chain, and your testimony will be measured carefully against its content,” Ossoff assured them.
We now have the transcript, and it indeed undermines several claims the administration has made over the past two days about the burgeoning scandal — including at that hearing.
Intelligence Officials Grilled After More Signal Texts Are Released
(NYT) Top intelligence officials who were part of a group chat on a consumer messaging app that discussed U.S. military plans to strike Houthi targets in Yemen faced intense questioning before the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. Their testimony came hours after The Atlantic published more messages from the group, which had inadvertently included the publication’s top editor.
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, and John Ratcliffe, the director of the C.I.A., were accused by Democrats of giving misleading answers about the chat, whose disclosure was a stunning breach of operational secrecy that Trump administration officials have attempted to downplay.

Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal
The administration has downplayed the importance of the text messages inadvertently sent to The Atlantic’s editor in chief.
By Jeffrey Goldberg and Shane Harris
“There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group,” Gabbard told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Ratcliffe said much the same: “My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.”
President Donald Trump, asked yesterday afternoon about the same matter, said, “It wasn’t classified information.”
These statements presented us with a dilemma. In The Atlantic’s initial story about the Signal chat—the “Houthi PC small group,” as it was named by Waltz—we withheld specific information related to weapons and to the timing of attacks that we found in certain texts. As a general rule, we do not publish information about military operations if that information could possibly jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel. That is why we chose to characterize the nature of the information being shared, not specific details about the attacks.
The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump—combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts—have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions.
Extra! 10 Questions Washington Reporters Need to Ask Right Now
Sorting out the astonishing leak revealed by the Atlantic
Richard J. Tofel
(Second Rough Draft) What follows are some of the initial questions to which the American people deserve answers. In another time, those would come from a special prosecutor appointed by the Justice Department or from congressional hearings. But the current Justice Department lacks the integrity to investigate this very serious breach of security, and the current congressional majorities lack the courage to probe shortcomings in the Administration.
1. The group chat was conducted on Signal, a private app developed by a non-profit, with one of the two lead developers being the co-founder of What’sApp, which is now owned by Facebook. While Signal is widely used in the private sector, including by journalists in Washington (and sometimes by me), it is a private communications vehicle. Is it approved for confidential discussions of American foreign and defense policy at the highest levels? If so, who approved this, and when did it occur? Also if so, what is the basis for believing Signal to be sufficiently secure for this purpose? …
Democrats slam intel chiefs over Trump team’s Signal leak of war plans
(WaPo) Intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe were evasive when pressed at a Senate hearing as to whether the discussion contained classified information. Democrats hammered the United States’ top intelligence officials Tuesday morning as they delivered the annual global threat assessment to Congress
The security breach has presented an uncomfortable test for Republicans, who have maintained an unflinching public loyalty to President Donald Trump, even as many GOP centrists have privately expressed alarm about his administration’s recent policy decisions and rhetoric.
‘A serious, serious issue’: Canada’s Carney jabs Trump admin after war plans leak fiasco
Carney said the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network — which includes Britain, Australia and New Zealand as well as Canada and the U.S. — needs to learn lessons from the leak of intelligence
What to Know About the Fallout From the Signal Group Chat Leak
The White House downplayed the seriousness of the incident, and President Trump defended his national security adviser, Michael Waltz, after the extraordinary disclosure.
President Trump told NBC News on Tuesday that the leak was “the only glitch in two months, and it turned out not to be a serious one.”
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, posted on social media that “no ‘war plans’ were discussed” and “no classified material was sent to the thread.” That contradicts Mr. Goldberg, who wrote that he had not published some of the messages in the thread because he said they contained sensitive information.
The administration has tried to discredit Jeffrey Goldberg.
When Mr. Trump was first asked Monday about the report, he said he was not aware of the leak, but he immediately attacked the magazine. …
Exploitable flaws: what US adversaries could learn from White House security failure
Hostile intelligence agencies are likely to pore over details revealed in chat group planning for Yemen strikes
Peter Beaumont
(The Guardian) The leak of top US officials’ deliberations over planning for this month’s strikes on the Houthis in Yemen – revealed by a journalist who was accidentally invited to a chat group on the Signal messaging app – will be highly useful for hostile intelligence agencies.
The fact that 18 of Donald Trump’s most senior officials and advisers, including several with a military background who have served overseas and should have been aware of operational security requirements, used an app not approved by the US government for sharing sensitive information will be seen as descriptive of their character and the nature of Washington’s current administration.
The displays of arrogance, recklessness and a belief that the normal rules do not apply will contribute to profiles of senior US decision-makers. …
The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans
U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat about upcoming military strikes in Yemen. I didn’t think it could be real. Then the bombs started falling.
By Jeffrey Goldberg

25 March
Pentagon ‘still mystified’ as drone drama deepens
(The Hill) Objects exhibiting advanced technology continue to fly with complete impunity over sensitive military installations and critical infrastructure. Despite the Pentagon’s advanced imaging and sensor capabilities, the nature, purpose and origin of these enigmatic craft are unknown, raising an array of pressing national security concerns.
… Notably, the objects are impervious to electronic jamming efforts, indicating that they are not off-the-shelf hobbyist drones.
On their face, these incidents pose an alarming intelligence and espionage risk. In the most brazen incidents in recent years, the unknown craft displayed bright flashing lights as they hovered over sensitive facilities and assets.
… Some of these incidents occurred over nuclear missile facilities, leading the Air Force to track the incursions closely. Publicly released Air Force emails describe sheriff’s deputies “seeing a ‘mothership’ [six feet] in diameter flanked by 10 smaller drones.” “When deputies follow the drones,” the email continues, “they clock them at speeds of 60-70 mph.” Similarly, multiple reports from Custer County, Neb., described “a swarm of 30 following a ‘mothership.’”
During a January roundtable hosted by Trump, the governors of Virginia, Wyoming and Louisiana expressed palpable frustration with the ongoing incidents, some of which have occurred near to and over nuclear power plants.
By flying so openly over sensitive sites while demonstrating seemingly extraordinary technology, an unknown actor is sending a stark message. But until these mysterious objects are identified, the exact nature of that message remains elusive.

10 March
Trump admin formally revokes a raft of Biden officials’ security clearances
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has officially pulled the clearances in keeping with orders from President Donald Trump.
(Politico Nightly) Trump admin formally revokes a raft of Biden officials’ security clearances: U.S. spy chief Tulsi Gabbard announced today she formally revoked clearances for a number of top Biden administration officials, following through on directives issued by President Donald Trump upon taking office. Gabbard, who serves as director of national intelligence and oversees the gamut of U.S. intelligence agencies, wrote in an X post that she revoked the clearances of former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, former national security adviser Jake Sullivan and former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. Monaco oversaw the prosecution of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Also in keeping with a prior announcement by Trump, former President Joe Biden will no longer receive the President’s Daily Brief, a summary of key intelligence findings that is delivered to the president in the morning, Gabbard said.

3 March
The Great Cyber Surrender: How Trump and His Lapdogs Opened the Gates for Putin’s Hackers
(Closer to the edge) Pete Hegseth—decorated veteran, Fox News bobblehead, and now, the grinning lapdog of America’s most overtly compromised president—has decided that now, now, is the perfect time to stop fighting back against Russian cyber threats. Because why should the world’s most powerful country bother keeping its digital guard up when we can just trust Putin to play nice? After all, that strategy worked out so well for Ukraine.

1-12 February
Senate Confirms Gabbard as Top Intelligence Official
(NYT) Ms. Gabbard had one of the most contentious confirmation hearings of all of the president’s nominees. A number of Republican senators joined Democrats in asking tough questions about her previous support of Edward Snowden, a former government contractor who released reams of classified data, and her skepticism about warrantless wiretaps of overseas communications.
Her defense of Bashar al-Assad, the former Syrian dictator, and her sympathy toward President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia also gave some Republican lawmakers pause.

Why Canada’s spies worry about Trump’s national intelligence nominee
Experts say pick of Tulsi Gabbard raises red flags, could limit information-sharing
(CBC) Hillary Clinton once called her a “Russian asset” — and that was while Tulsi Gabbard was still a Democrat.
Of all of Donald Trump’s cabinet picks, none have caused so many reservations from within the Republican Party. … Gabbard’s only national security experience is in the Hawaii National Guard, and she is well known for sympathizing with dictators and embracing conspiracy theories, as well as her devotion to a Hawaii-based offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement.

29 January
The three strikes against Tulsi Gabbard
David Ignatius
There are three solid reasons to oppose her confirmation: her lack of competence in the skills the job requires; the wobbly credibility of her past statements; and her poor judgment about key issues facing the intelligence community.
The DNI job was created to oversee and coordinate the 18 agencies that make up the “intelligence community.” Because this is largely a management job rather than a policy position, the legislation that created the post specifically requires that anyone nominated “have extensive national security experience.” The law even detailed dozens of duties and functions the DNI should perform.
The people who have done this job the best, not surprisingly, are the ones with the most expertise: Mike McConnell, a Navy vice admiral who ran the National Security Agency; James R. Clapper Jr., an Air Force lieutenant general who directed the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; and Avril Haines, who served as deputy director of the CIA and deputy national security adviser. They had the “extensive” experience the law requires.

3 January
The Rise of John Ratcliffe
A partisan loyalist with a history of politicizing intelligence will soon be running the CIA.
By Shane Harris
(The Atlantic) Ratcliffe’s appeal to Trump has always been clear: He’s a political operator willing to push the boundaries of a[n] historically apolitical position in a manner that serves the president’s interests. In November, Trump nominated Ratcliffe for an even more important job than the previous one: CIA director. The question likely to hang over his tenure is how much further he will go to enable Trump’s attacks on the intelligence community.