Truth and Intelligence
When the analyst's job becomes making the decision look reasonable
If you’d like these posts delivered directly to you, subscribe to the Decisions newsletter now!
An article in The Atlantic this week highlighted concerns among analysts within the U.S. intelligence community (IC). The first paragraphs of Shane Harris’s article provide the dangers being raised within the IC: [1]
The CIA officer Ray Cline, who was the agency’s chief analyst during the Cuban missile crisis, once observed that when it comes to intelligence analysis, “objectivity is the only virtue that really counts.” By that standard, senior Trump-administration officials have fallen short, and they risk corrupting a system that’s supposed to remain apolitical and grounded in facts, according to a recent survey of CIA analysts.
Since Donald Trump returned to office, the number of CIA employees who said they are concerned that the objectivity of analysis is being undermined by political influence has gone up significantly, according to the survey, which is conducted annually by the agency’s ombudsman for analytic integrity. The results haven’t been made public, but they were described to me by several people familiar with them.
It’s not clear how many of the thousands of career employees involved in producing reports, briefings, and other materials for the president and his advisers responded. But their comments show how acutely some of them feel pressured to reach preferred outcomes instead of following the facts wherever they lead, the people familiar with the voluntary survey told me. They requested not to be identified by name so that they could speak candidly.
Some analysts, in the open-ended sections of the survey, pointed to actions taken under then-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, including the revocation of security clearances from officials never accused of wrongdoing.
The article is enlightening, highlighting cases where Trump administration leaders are taking action when analysts refuse to distort information. One such case: the dismissal of career intelligence officers after one of Gabbard’s deputies tried to rewrite an assessment about Venezuelan gangs to provide a legal justification for deporting immigrants from that country.
To institutionalize the independent and objective assessments that come from the IC, Intelligence Community Directive 203 [2] tells analysts what their job actually is: assess how likely something is, and assess what it would mean if it happened. Likelihood and impact.
It sets out five analytics standards, stating that the analytic products must be objective, independent of political consideration, timely, based on all available sources of intelligence information, and implementing nine specific standards for IC analytic products.
This way, the political leaders in charge of these agencies get the most objective information upon which to make the best decision possible.
This is the professionalism within the intelligence community, centered around good decision making. It serves the public well to ensure that the facts are raised objectively and that elected and appointed leaders can make the best decisions they can, given these objective facts.
And separating the assessments from the ultimate decision being made serves a beneficial purpose: it keeps the assessment from quietly bending to fit the decision someone already wanted to make.
And that is exactly the pressure point where things break.
Leaders sometimes want a particular outcome, and when an honest assessment makes that outcome look unreasonable, they look at two options.
One, change their decision.
Or two, work how the truth looks so the original decision looks reasonable again.
The second path is always there and is always tempting, because it lets you keep what you wanted without ever having to defend wanting it.
This is not a Washington-only problem. It can show up in boardrooms, among executive teams, on city councils, and in non-profit groups. Many times, it shows up a bit softer: "can you pull something together that supports the direction we're heading?" The road toward rationalization is a natural one, but doesn’t lead to better decisions, only more comfortable ones.
Whether in the intelligence community or elsewhere, we need to protect the people doing the truth-finding and hold leaders accountable for owning their decisions in full view of the honest assessment, not a massaged one.
Notes and Sources
[1] Shane Harris, “CIA Officers Can Sense the Threat Within,” The Atlantic, July 10, 2026, https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/07/cia-trump-intelligence-survey-gabbard/687865/
[2] Intelligence Community Directive 203, Analytic Standards, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, June 12, 2023, retrieved July 11, 2026, https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICD/ICD-203.pdf
Decisions with Mic Farris
Seek Truth. Honor Differences.
