After 5 Days, Trump’s Intelligence Pick Withdraws Amid Criticism of His Lack of Qualifications

The president is mad that the “LameStream Media” reported on Ratcliffe’s resume.

Spencer Platt/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Add Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) to the list of administration picks for important positions to be withdrawn by President Donald Trump, because he said he wanted to spare the nominee the pain of a tough confirmation hearing. Just five days after announcing Ratcliffe’s nomination to replace Dan Coats as the head of the United States intelligence community, Trump withdrew his name from consideration, blaming “the LameStream Media.”

Ratcliffe, a three-term congressman with no experience in the intelligence community, had been hounded by news coverage this week critical of his thin resume and history of embellishing aspects of his law enforcement career. Formerly a small-town Texas mayor and counterterrorism prosecutor, Ratcliffe was nominated Sunday to lead the nation’s seventeen intelligence agencies and represent their views to Trump.

The position, which was created in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, had previously been filled by appointees with a long history in either the intelligence community, military, or national security establishment. Coats, a former diplomat and longtime lawmaker from Indiana, had garnered praise in the role for shielding the intelligence agencies from Trump’s frequent criticisms. Initially, the concerns about Ratcliffe’s nomination focused on his stunning lack of experience for the job, having never served in the military or in intelligence services. As I reported on Monday:

Ratcliffe, if confirmed by the Senate, is expected to infuse a traditionally apolitical job with a partisan edge. That has Trump critics concerned, given that the national intelligence director’s main role is to deliver the president’s daily intelligence briefing.

But then, as with any major Executive Branch appointee, Ratcliffe’s background was scrutinized and a series of stories emerged that questioned details of his past. On Monday, ABC News reported that he embellished his role in a federal case involving individuals accused of funneling money to Hamas. Ratcliffe said in a 2015 press release that he “convicted individuals” involved in the case, but sources who spoke with ABC News said they “had no recollection of Ratcliffe being involved with any of the proceedings that resulted in the convictions of their clients.” As a prosecutor, Ratcliffe claimed to have “arrested over 300 illegal immigrants on a single day,” but the Washington Post reported Friday that he played only a “supporting role” in the sweep, which was less successful than his boast implied. “Only 45 workers were charged by prosecutors in Ratcliffe’s office,” the Post reported. “Six of those cases were dismissed, two of them because the suspects turned out to be American citizens.”

Despite his lack of traditional credentials, Ratcliffe garnered Trump’s esteem through frequent cable news appearances, where he sharply criticized former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and floated a conspiracy theory about a “secret society” working against Trump within the FBI. During congressional hearings with former attorney general Loretta Lynch and ousted FBI director James Comey that took place during the 2016 campaign, Ratcliffe pushed the narrative that career, national security officials are biased against Trump. He most recently won Trump’s admiration for a colorful exchange with Mueller at last week’s congressional hearing. Ratcliffe accused Mueller of breaking “every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary” by outlining possible evidence of Trump obstructing justice without actually indicting him. 

But Ratcliffe’s appointment was not to be. Senate Democrats had already begun a campaign to question his qualifications and crucial Republican votes, like Senate Intelligence Committee member Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), showed little interest in defending him. Ratcliffe “was watching coverage of his possible nomination pile up, and the White House was getting word that he would struggle to get enough Republicans to confirm him,” Axios reported

Other recent White House appointees have withdrawn under similar scrutiny from the press, which has prompted more media criticism from Trump. After Ronny Jackson, Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs, withdrew last year, Trump called allegations of his unprofessional conduct a “disgrace” and evidence of his critics “trying to destroy a man.”

Trump has not yet selected another nominee but other possibilities have included former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz, who is close to national security adviser John Bolton, and Gen. Joseph Dunford, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate