Fights Between CIA and ODNI – Iran Intelligence Withheld

The US-Iran situation is volatile — talks and conflict are unfolding in parallel, with no clear resolution in sight. For Trump to make the right calls, he needs precise intelligence. Yet at this critical moment, serious infighting has erupted within the intelligence community. Tensions between the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) have intensified to the point of open hostility.

ODNI serves as Trump's all-seeing eye on intelligence, so any breakdown in CIA intelligence flow could cause dangerous misjudgments. Worse still, the incoming Director of National Intelligence, Pulte, is a staunch Trump loyalist with no intelligence background — making cooperation with the CIA even more difficult, and the situation likely to deteriorate further.

After taking office last year, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was consistently at odds with the CIA, with tensions escalating relentlessly. The CIA has angrily halted the provision of some intelligence on Iran — a move detrimental to the war effort.

Three words capture the state of the US intelligence system right now: a complete mess. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has abruptly resigned after clashing with Trump. The official reason cited her husband's illness, but in reality, she was dismissed and will leave by the end of the month.

At the same time, Reuters, citing informed sources, revealed that since taking office in February last year, Gabbard had been in constant conflict with the CIA — and that tensions had recently escalated sharply. The CIA has now reportedly stopped providing certain intelligence assessments to ODNI, including analyses related to the Iran conflict.

Insiders say friction erupted shortly after Gabbard took office. She moved against the CIA on multiple fronts. First, she tightened control over the production of the President's Daily Brief, sharply reducing the CIA's direct involvement. Then she established a special task force, claiming it was meant to eliminate politicization within the intelligence system. The task force, however, bypassed the standard intelligence-sharing and declassification procedures that the CIA should have been part of — and operated independently. That infuriated CIA Director Ratcliffe.

ODNI offered a different account, accusing the CIA of obstructing the task force's access to necessary intelligence. Both sides are entrenched in their positions, and the dispute has turned deeply acrimonious.

The infighting has destroyed mutual trust. In retaliation, the CIA has sharply reduced the intelligence it shares with ODNI on Iran. The consequences could be severe: disrupting the intelligence pipeline to the president, distorting battlefield assessments, and ultimately triggering catastrophic decisions.

Gabbard's departure at the end of the month might have offered a chance to reset relations. But Trump has made an unexpected move. He has appointed Pulte — currently head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage regulation — as her successor. Pulte has no intelligence experience whatsoever. He is, however, a fiercely loyal Trump enforcer, clearly positioned to aggressively purge what Trump sees as "deep state" elements within the CIA and other intelligence agencies. If Pulte assumes full control, tensions with the CIA are almost certain to escalate.

Pulte, who is set to replace Gabbard, has no intelligence background. His appointment reflects Trump's need for a loyal enforcer to carry out a sweeping crackdown on the CIA — a move that will inevitably intensify their conflict.

Pulte must still clear the Senate confirmation process. His nomination was immediately attacked by Democratic lawmakers, who argue he lacks any intelligence credentials. They describe him as a partisan enforcer who has repeatedly helped Trump target political opponents — and question the logic of entrusting national security to such a figure.

Those criticisms are not unfounded. Pulte has reportedly exposed alleged "mortgage document fraud" involving Trump's political rivals, using such material to apply legal pressure — tactics widely seen as ruthless. Trump values his aggression and loyalty, which explains the selection. As DNI, Pulte's primary mission will be to overhaul the 18 intelligence agencies under his authority, with the CIA as the main target.

Trump's animosity toward the CIA runs deep. During the 2016 "Russiagate" investigation, a group of intelligence officers participated in assessments he viewed as a "deep state" conspiracy against him — a grievance he has sought to settle ever since. Upon returning to power, he appointed Gabbard to lead ODNI with the key mission of purging the CIA. That decision planted the seeds of today's institutional warfare between the two agencies.

The US-Iran conflict and the Russia-Ukraine war remain fluid and unpredictable. Yet at this critical juncture, the US intelligence system is tearing itself apart — and the infighting is only getting worse. The leaders of Iran and Russia, watching this spectacle unfold, are surely smiling behind closed doors.

Lai Ting-yiu

What Say You?

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

A nation’s rise or fall hinges on its ability to retain its brightest minds. The New York Times recently reported that American immigrant and Nobel laureate Omar Yaghi is resigning from the University of California, Berkeley. He is heading to Tsinghua University to lead an artificial intelligence institute for materials research. 

Make no mistake: this move involves more than an attractive contract. As a Palestinian refugee, Yaghi fiercely opposes Donald Trump's anti-immigration policies and fears they threaten scientific development. Immigrants make up 40 percent of American Nobel laureates. Coupled with drastic government funding cuts, experts are warning of the most severe scholar exodus in a decade.

Omar Yaghi is an international authority in materials science and a recent Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry. He recently abandoned the US to join Tsinghua University. He was born a Palestinian refugee and later immigrated to America. His profound anxiety over Trump's anti-immigration agenda is a primary catalyst for his departure.

The migration of elite research talent operates on a mix of pull and push factors. Yaghi’s successful recruitment highlights China’s unwavering commitment to talent development and drawing in top foreign scholars. Water flows down, but human ambition reaches upward. These scholars will only jump ship if they see limitless potential for complementary development in China. For Yaghi, the conditions were perfect.

The New York Times interviewed Ram Seshadri, a chemistry professor at UC Santa Barbara. He noted that Yaghi’s move signals a fundamental shift in the technological rivalry between China and the US. "They've overtaken us in many areas of materials science and chemistry," he said, referring to China. "They're willing to invest very large sums of money to attract new talent." In fact, China currently outpaces the US in publishing top-tier chemistry papers.

The reality is Yaghi's exodus from the US is deeply intertwined with his personal history. The report shed light on his obscure origins. He was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan and grew up in a squalid room devoid of water or electricity before immigrated to the US when he was 15 years old.

Tsinghua University wooed Yaghi with a highly lucrative employment package. He takes charge of a cutting-edge institute utilizing AI to synthesize new materials. Tsinghua Party Secretary Qiu Yong and President Li Luming both attended his appointment ceremony last week.

This immigrant background leaves him deeply alienated by Trump’s anti-immigration policies. Before flying to Sweden to accept his Nobel Prize last year, he shared his fears with The New York Times. He is dissatisfied with these policies and worries they will dismantle the collaborative system built by universities, corporations, and the government. He sees this as a direct blow to American scientific progress.

The psychological toll of Trump’s brutal stance on top scholars is severe. Last year alone, three American Nobel laureates were born overseas. Immigrants have claimed 40 percent of all Nobel Prizes since the start of the century. Under the current political climate, a growing number of scientists feel the US is no longer a viable home.

But the real issue driving this brain drain is the relentless slashing of scientific research funding. As the pie shrinks, researchers battle over dwindling resources and face immense frustration. A US medical journal revealed that the National Institutes of Health abruptly canceled 700 grants worth $1.8 billion in the first quarter of last year. The National Science Foundation also saw its research budget axed by nearly $1.4 billion.

To exert political pressure on academic institutions, Trump has systematically dismantled numerous research grants. Even financial subsidies for Harvard University have been frozen.

These converging negative factors are leaving top scholars disillusioned and eager to abandon the US. Data from a Nature scientific job platform shows a 35 percent year-on-year surge in American scientists seeking overseas employment. A survey by the publication revealed a staggering 75 percent of researchers desire to leave the country. This trend foreshadows the most dramatic exodus of academics in a decade.

The restlessness among American scientists is further stoked by aggressive recruitment from China and Europe. Both are doubling down with lucrative financial incentives to lure top talent. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development notes that China's research funding growth has eclipsed that of the US. With abundant capital waiting in China, American scholars naturally feel compelled to move.

The eastward migration of US Nobel laureates is rapidly solidifying into a long-term trend. Hong Kong universities offer significantly better compensation for outstanding scholars compared to their American counterparts. This gives Hong Kong an absolute advantage in talent acquisition, and institutions must act quickly to inject impetus into their research programs before missing out.

Lai Ting-yiu