The CIA’s Transformation Under Trump: A Former Officer Weighs In on Buyouts, Turmoil, and Global Security
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a cornerstone of U.S. national security, is navigating uncharted waters under the Trump administration. With Director John Ratcliffe at the helm, the agency is undergoing dramatic structural changes, including sweeping employee buyouts and operational overhauls. These moves have sparked intense debate about their implications for intelligence-gathering, international partnerships, and global stability. To unpack these shifts, former CIA counter-terrorism officer Michelle Rigby Assad sat down with journalist Sayoni Aiyar, offering a rare insider’s perspective on the turbulence within the intelligence community.
The Buyout Gamble: Reshaping the CIA’s Workforce
Aiyar: The CIA is offering employees eight months of pay and benefits to leave voluntarily. What’s your take?
Assad: This isn’t just a personnel shuffle—it’s a seismic cultural shift. Voluntary buyouts are often framed as cost-cutting measures, but in the intelligence world, they risk dismantling institutional knowledge. The CIA thrives on expertise cultivated over decades. Field operatives, analysts, and technical specialists don’t just “learn on the job”; their insights are honed through years of navigating complex geopolitical landscapes. If seasoned officers exit, the agency could face critical gaps in areas like counterterrorism, cyber warfare, and diplomatic intelligence.
That said, Director Ratcliffe may see this as an opportunity to pivot toward emerging threats. The Cold War-era CIA isn’t fully equipped to handle modern challenges like AI-driven disinformation or quantum computing. A leaner workforce could mean reinvesting in tech-savvy recruits. But the gamble here is immense. You can’t fast-track experience. If the brain drain outpaces the influx of new talent, the U.S. risks ceding ground to adversaries like China and Russia.
Internal Disruptions: Morale and Mission Drift
Aiyar: Beyond buyouts, federal agencies are grappling with internal upheaval. How does this affect their operations?
Assad: Turmoil within the CIA or sister agencies like the FBI and NSA isn’t just bureaucratic noise—it has real-world consequences. Morale plummets when employees sense instability. Intelligence work requires meticulous attention to detail; a distracted or disengaged officer might miss a crucial piece of intel, whether it’s a terrorist plot or a foreign election interference campaign.
Moreover, the politicization of intelligence is a growing concern. When leadership changes are perceived as partisan—such as the ousting of inspectors general or the installation of politically aligned directors—it breeds skepticism among career officers. They may second-guess whether their analyses will be dismissed for contradicting a political narrative. This erodes the apolitical ethos that’s vital for credible intelligence.
The USAID Shutdown: A Blow to Soft Power
Aiyar: The Trump administration’s controversial decision to shutter USAID missions in critical regions has drawn backlash. How does this intersect with intelligence?
Assad: USAID isn’t just a humanitarian arm; it’s a strategic tool. In conflict zones like Syria or Yemen, aid workers often serve as the eyes and ears on the ground. They gather intel on local factions, economic instability, and emerging threats—all while building goodwill. Pulling out these programs doesn’t just hurt vulnerable populations; it blindsides the CIA.
For example, USAID projects in Africa often counterbalance Chinese and Russian influence. If the U.S. retreats, adversaries step in, offering infrastructure deals or military support. This isn’t hypothetical: We’ve seen Russia’s Wagner Group fill vacuums in Libya and Sudan. The CIA then faces a steeper climb to gather intel in regions dominated by rivals.
Global Security Implications: Partnerships at Risk
Aiyar: What broader risks do these changes pose to international security?
Assad: Intelligence is a team sport. The CIA relies on alliances with MI6, Mossad, and others to track threats like terrorism or nuclear proliferation. But trust erodes when partners see the U.S. as unpredictable. If staffing cuts lead to slower intel sharing or operational missteps, allies may hesitate to collaborate closely.
Take counterterrorism. Joint operations against groups like ISIS depend on real-time data exchange. If the CIA’s capacity dips, timelines slip, and threats go unchecked. Similarly, cybersecurity partnerships—like tracking state-sponsored hackers—require deep technical coordination. A weakened CIA could embolden adversaries to test red lines, from election meddling to assassinations on foreign soil.
Looking Ahead: Can the CIA Adapt?
Aiyar: Is this transformation a necessary evolution or a dangerous experiment?
Assad: Modernization is inevitable—agencies must adapt or become obsolete. However, the pace and scale of these changes are concerning. A successful overhaul would balance innovation with respect for institutional knowledge. For instance, pairing veteran officers with tech specialists to mentor them while integrating AI tools.
But right now, the focus seems skewed toward short-term gains. The risk isn’t just operational; it’s reputational. If the CIA is viewed as a political instrument rather than a neutral intelligence provider, its global credibility tanks. That’s a win for autocrats and a loss for democracies.
The CIA’s transformation under Ratcliffe reflects a broader trend of disruption within U.S. institutions. While innovation is crucial, the agency’s strength lies in its people—their expertise, relationships, and judgment. As Assad underscores, sidelining seasoned officers without a clear strategy risks undermining national security in an increasingly volatile world. The stakes are high: In intelligence, every misstep echoes globally. Whether this overhaul fortifies the CIA or fractures it may well define U.S. security for decades to come.
Click Here to subscribe to our newsletters and get the latest updates directly to your inbox
.