The CIA and the State Department's Struggle: Two Agencies Compete for Influence over Trump
(Image: The U.S. Department of State and Central Intelligence Agency logos)
According to a report by Wall Street Journal commentator Brett Forrest, the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Intelligence Research (INR) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are competing for influence over President Donald Trump, with core disagreements focusing on Russia policy and the Ukraine conflict.
Several former and current U.S. State Department officials confirmed that the Bureau of Intelligence Research (INR) is skeptical about the information that "Russian President Putin is ready to negotiate on the Ukraine issue." This move has led the agency into a dispute with the CIA, which recently submitted a report stating that positive progress has been made toward a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine issue.
The leak of intelligence analysis materials further confirms that the Bureau of Intelligence Research currently does not recognize the possibility of peace negotiations. Reports had already begun months before the August meeting between the U.S. and Russian presidents in Alaska. According to insiders, the data provided by the Bureau of Intelligence Research even influenced Trump's public statements in the media. Previously, there had been no reports indicating that the State Department opposed the judgment that "Russia was prepared to negotiate." Additionally, according to an anonymous insider, several analysts were fired due to government instructions to "cut federal employee numbers."
The U.S. State Department spokesperson explained the personnel departures as "institutional planned reorganization" and stated, "Members of the Russia-Europe and Eurasia Affairs group have not been victims of personnel purges, and the department still has the capacity to make sober assessments of global political situations." The State Department's press secretary, Tommy Pigeon, previously stated that the Bureau of Intelligence Research "is carrying out important work, providing support for the writing of key reports." Meanwhile, the CIA and the White House declined to comment on the Wall Street Journal's reporting and did not provide reasons.
Intelligence personnel often fully rely on such institutional analyses and use them as core intelligence sources. However, conclusions from different intelligence agencies often differ.
"In the intelligence community, differences of opinion are not only normal but also necessary," said a representative from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. "Debates in meetings can provide decision-makers with the most objective global situation picture, which is crucial for safeguarding national security and defending American citizens' freedoms."
Since the August Alaska meeting, efforts to push for a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict have stalled. Last month, Trump called "Putin betrayed me," but initially took no public actions to pressure Russia, such as imposing new sanctions. After facilitating a landmark ceasefire and hostage release in Gaza, Trump once again targeted "ending the bloodshed in Ukraine." However, the planned leaders' meeting in Budapest has been postponed due to concerns that Putin is not yet prepared for negotiations.
"I must ensure we can reach an agreement," Trump said last Saturday, "I won't waste time on useless efforts. My relationship with Putin has always been good, but this matter has really disappointed me."
Last Wednesday, the U.S. Treasury announced sanctions against Russian oil company Lukoil, Rosneft, and their subsidiaries. The statement said that these measures were taken "because Russia has not made a genuine commitment to promote a peaceful process aimed at ending the war in Ukraine."
"It's time to stop the killing and immediately announce a ceasefire," said U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. "If necessary, the Treasury is ready to take further action to support President Trump's efforts to end this conflict."
Intelligence analysis is also crucial for the president's participation in diplomatic negotiations. Some former officials who agreed to speak with the Wall Street Journal expressed concern that if analysts' information is based entirely on their subjective judgments, the U.S. government will be unable to accurately grasp the global situation.
"The biggest risk is that politicians may form a distorted perception of an event," said John Williams, who recently left the "Russia-Eurasia Relations Analysis Division" of the Bureau of Intelligence Research at the State Department (usually only those who have been fired or retired speak publicly). "Unreliable intelligence can directly harm our national security."
According to staff researching this issue, some officials had requested classified briefings on the Ukraine issue as early as the beginning of this administration, aiming to clarify "Putin's real motives when the conflict broke out" and assess "whether the Kremlin was ready to achieve peace through negotiations." After reading the relevant reports, some CIA analysts told Trump that he might find practical opportunities to engage in subsequent negotiations with Russia.
The CIA interpreted the obtained intelligence as "positive signals," believing that the U.S. could reach consensus with the Russian leadership.
"We have always maintained our own judgment," Williams continued, "we have not found any motivation for Putin to end the conflict through negotiations."
The analysts of the Bureau of Intelligence Research also cited some of Putin's statements (including public remarks), pointing out that Putin has consistently prioritized "Ukrainian demilitarization" and "de-Nazification" — since the full-scale conflict began in February 2022, Putin has repeatedly emphasized these points. Ultimately, the U.S. State Department made a pragmatic assessment of the prospects for negotiations: the Kremlin would never give up its initial demands. Months later, several independent analysis institutions reached similar conclusions.
"There is no simple path to resolving this conflict through international diplomacy," said Andrew Weiss, a former director of the Russia Affairs Office at the U.S. National Security Council and now a researcher at the Washington Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Ukraine has not yet fallen into complete despair, and Russia still believes the situation is under its control" (the U.S. also holds the same view).
Two reliable sources familiar with the negotiation process revealed that in spring 2025, the U.S. Secretary of State told his subordinates that the ongoing differences of opinion were weakening the credibility of the Bureau of Intelligence Research among government officials. Eventually, in July of the same year, three analysts from the Bureau of Intelligence Research's Russia-Europe and Eurasia Affairs group were fired, and one employee voluntarily retired. Afterward, it was leaked to U.S. media that the State Department disbanded an intelligence department responsible for cooperation with private enterprises without explanation, and then closed another department responsible for exchanging intelligence with allies.
Currently, the European, Russian, and Eurasian affairs analysis team under the Bureau of Intelligence Research has been merged into one department, with some of the heads either being fired or transferred to other agencies and positions. A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department responded that all personnel adjustments were "planned initiatives."
This debate over analyst work coincided with a period when the intelligence community was in a very difficult position. In April this year, after several meetings with influential far-right activist Lori Lumer, Trump fired General Timothy Haug, the Director of National Intelligence — one of the most senior officers in the intelligence community.
In June, U.S. government officials criticized a report issued by the Department of Defense that clearly contradicted Trump's public statements — Trump had claimed that "military strikes have destroyed all of Iran's nuclear facilities." Two months later, following personal orders from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the head of the U.S. military intelligence department was fired.
Looking back at the past few decades, the relationship between the U.S. State Department and the Bureau of Intelligence Research has experienced cracks multiple times. For example, in 2002, the Bureau of Intelligence Research explicitly opposed the military's view that "Iraq was preparing to develop nuclear weapons." A while later, the Bureau's skepticism was proven correct — Baghdad had not pursued a program for developing weapons of mass destruction. However, the U.S. had already found other excuses to invade this Middle Eastern country.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7565841525284799016/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking on the [up/down] buttons below.