Follow us on social

2019-10-31t000000z_118279231_rc143f0c97e0_rtrmadp_3_usa-trump-impeachment-1-scaled

Why Is The #Resistance Lionizing The National Security State?

Analysis | Washington Politics

Remember the Patriot Act? It still exists, and law enforcement is still widely abusing it. A key part of this authority was set to expire at the end of the year, providing an opportunity to curtail or abolish it. Yet despite the 2018 “blue wave” election that came with a promise to stop the worst of Trump’s abuses, the Democratic-led House of Representatives just quietly voted to extend it, with no reforms.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. As an experiment, do a quick Twitter search to find users who proudly label themselves as part of the #Resistance but also invoke another hashtag: #ILoveTheFBI. You’ll find quite a few examples. It’s a bizarre phenomenon of the Trump era—with an unpopular president whose unhinged rants frequently include screeds against “the Deep State,” confidence in the national security apparatus is soaring by contrast. But while blind allegiance to these institutions might find some success in scoring points against Trump, it only enables Trumpism more broadly.

On one level, this trend is understandable, particularly among newly-activated voters reeling from the 2016 election and grasping for a return to perceived normalcy. Donald Trump frequently peddles conspiracy theories and attacks, including claims that he was a victim of illegal surveillance, that there’s a partisan conspiracy against him at the FBI, that investigations into his misdeeds are “witch hunts,” something about “unmasking,” warrants, and Carter Page...the list is seemingly endless.

This is all counterfactual and quite silly, of course. But the opposing response has been worrisome, too. Figures like former FBI directors James Comey and Robert Mueller have been elevated to hero status (including, inexplicably, a children’s book featuring Mueller in a Chippendale outfit). Former CIA directors John Brennan and Michael Hayden fill the airwaves of ostensibly “liberal” cable news programming. Bill Maher led an applause tribute to the FBI and CIA on his show. Celebrities implore fans to “cherish” the CIA. At various points, military leaders in the administration like John Kelly or Jim Mattis have been relied upon as the “adults in the room” to save us from the worst of Trump’s impulses.

But here’s the problem: the creeping authoritarianism, lawlessness, and human rights disasters exemplified so clearly by Trump have long existed in the U.S. government, mostly in the shadowy crevices of the national security state that’s now being lionized. The FBI and CIA will not save us from Trump. They helped give us Trump.

It’s a form of privilege to think that things were okay in the pre-Trump era, or at least okay enough that we should return there as soon as possible as a first step to fixing this mess. But merely turning back the clock isn’t going to cut it. As abuses in the name of national security disproportionately impact racial and religious minorities, communities under attack at home and around the world have long been well aware of the dangers that come when we fail to critique or limit the power of the security state.

It wasn’t so long ago that federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies colluded to operate a covert torture program that was illegal, brutal, and—not that it matters—completely ineffective. They lied to the administration, Congress, and the American people and are still fighting to keep the totality of their crimes under cover (by the way, don’t miss the new film The Report to get caught up on and really angry about this recent history). That’s part and parcel, though: for decades the CIA has worked to overthrow and assassinate abroad, while the FBI has terrorized dissidents, activists, and communities of color here at home.

Before taking up residence as an MSNBC contributor reliably issuing anti-Trump zingers, John Brennan played a supportive role in torture and targeted killings. Michael Hayden led a secretive, illegal mass surveillance network. John Kelly managed the indefinite detention camp at Guantanamo and Mattis oversaw civilian massacres in Iraq. Robert Mueller’s testimony helped get us into the Iraq War and his FBI leadership oversaw rounding up and detaining Muslim men on bogus charges post-9/11.

The point is that, while of course there are civil servants working in good faith within the system who are totally undeserving of Trump’s erratic attacks, we must be clear-eyed about our own history if we’re to have a better future. The answer to Trumpism isn’t unchecked faith in the security state, it’s transformational reform that centers the rule of law and accountability to the people.

If ever there was a time to rein in the power of the national security state, it’s now, when the self-described resistance holds some power under a dangerous president embattled in an impeachment scandal. It’s time for our elected representatives to lead the way not in protecting the norms, but in creating new norms that truly make our communities secure.


Former CIA director John Brennan, former CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, former CIA acting director Michael Morell and former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, speak during a forum on election security titled, “2020 Vision: Intelligence and the U.S. Presidential Election” at the National Press Club in Washington, U.S., October 30, 2019. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
Analysis | Washington Politics
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.