The role of the US intelligence agencies under the current US administration

By Matthew Parish, Associate Editor

Wednesday 11 February 2026

Under the second administration of President Donald Trump, the role and perceived importance of the United States’ intelligence agencies has undergone a marked and progressive reduction. This shift has not taken the form of a dramatic institutional rupture. Rather it has emerged through budgetary restraint, personnel churn, political signalling and a reorientation of decision-making away from traditional intelligence assessments towards instinct, ideology and transactional diplomacy. The cumulative effect has been to marginalise intelligence as a central instrument of American statecraft, with consequences that extend well beyond Washington.

The United States intelligence community, comprising bodies such as the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, has historically occupied a privileged position within the American national security architecture. Since the Second World War intelligence assessments have informed military planning, alliance management, arms control and crisis response. Even when presidents disagreed with intelligence conclusions, the institutional assumption was that professional analysis mattered, and that it constrained the bounds of plausible policy.

Under President Trump’s second term this assumption has weakened. Intelligence briefings have reportedly been shortened, filtered or, at times, bypassed entirely. Senior intelligence officials have faced pressure to align assessments with presidential narratives, particularly on issues touching domestic politics, immigration, election security and relations with Russia and China. Where alignment has not been forthcoming, officials have often departed early, either dismissed or marginalised. The result has been an attenuation of institutional confidence, with analysts increasingly uncertain that their work will meaningfully influence policy.

Several factors help explain this development. At its core lies President Trump’s long-standing scepticism towards expert bureaucracy. Intelligence agencies, like the State Department and parts of the military leadership, are viewed as components of a permanent governing class whose interests are not necessarily aligned with those of the electorate that returned him to office. From this perspective, intelligence is not a neutral tool but a political actor in its own right, capable of shaping narratives, constraining executive freedom and, in extreme interpretations, undermining presidential authority.

This scepticism has been reinforced by personal and political experience. President Trump’s first term was marked by investigations and leaks that drew heavily on intelligence material, particularly in relation to alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. Regardless of the legal merits of those inquiries, they entrenched a perception within the President’s circle that intelligence agencies were adversarial rather than supportive. The second administration has therefore approached the intelligence community less as a partner than as a potential liability to be managed.

A further explanation lies in the administration’s foreign policy style. Trumpian diplomacy privileges bilateral deals, economic leverage and personal rapport between leaders. Intelligence assessments, which are probabilistic, cautious and often pessimistic, sit uneasily with a worldview that values decisiveness and spectacle. When foreign policy is conducted through direct leader-to-leader engagement, the mediating role of intelligence, with its emphasis on structural constraints and long-term trends, becomes easier to disregard.

The internal consequences of this shift are significant. Reduced morale and accelerated turnover within intelligence agencies risk eroding institutional memory and analytical depth. Recruitment and retention suffer when professional expertise appears undervalued or politically hazardous. Over time this degrades the quality of intelligence itself, creating a self-reinforcing cycle in which poorer analysis further justifies sidelining the institutions that produce it.

The external consequences are more profound still. Allies have long relied on American intelligence as a cornerstone of collective security. Intelligence sharing within NATO and with partners in East Asia rests not only on technical capability but on trust that assessments are rigorous, insulated from politics and responsibly used. As confidence in Washington’s intelligence processes diminishes, allies may become more guarded, sharing less or hedging by developing parallel intelligence arrangements.

Adversaries, by contrast, are likely to perceive opportunity. States such as Russia and China have always sought to exploit gaps between intelligence warning and political response. A United States less attentive to its own intelligence increases the risk of miscalculation, whether through underestimating adversary intentions or overreacting to incomplete information. In crisis situations, the absence of trusted intelligence channels can accelerate escalation rather than contain it.

For the global order, the longer-term geopolitical consequences are troubling. American intelligence dominance has been a stabilising factor in international relations, enabling early warning, arms control verification and the quiet management of crises. Its erosion contributes to a more opaque and volatile world, in which surprises are more frequent and the margin for error narrower. For countries such as Ukraine, whose security depends heavily on timely intelligence and allied coordination, any weakening of American analytical capacity has direct and potentially existential implications.

The progressive reduction in the importance of US intelligence agencies under the second Trump administration is therefore not merely an internal administrative choice. It reflects a deeper transformation in how power, knowledge and authority are understood within American governance. Whether this shift proves temporary or endures beyond the current presidency will shape the strategic environment for years to come. If intelligence is no longer central to American decision-making, the consequences will be felt not only in Washington but across a world already struggling with uncertainty, conflict and the erosion of established norms.