Trump’s Top Intelligence Official Says Trump Has No Grand Plan to Protect US Elections

Preventing another Russian cyberattack does not seem to be a White House priority.

President Trump meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, left, and Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States.Russian Foreign Ministry Photo via AP

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


On Wednesday, as the political firestorm caused by President Donald Trump’s firing of FBI chief James Comey raged, Trump met in the White House with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. At one point, all three of them posed for a photo, each looking rather jolly.

The news soon emerged that Trump had received Lavrov in the White House in response to a request from Russian leader Valdimir Putin. So Trump was granting a favor to the fellow who had mounted a covert operation to subvert the presidential campaign. And Trump took no action at this meeting to assure the American public that he was working to prevent another such attack from Putin. The White House report on this gathering included no indication that Trump said anything to the Russians about their intervention in the US presidential election.

Since taking office, Trump has showed no sign that he takes Putin’s attack seriously and that he is committed to securing future American elections from similar cyber-assaults. In January, before taking office, Trump promised that in his first 90 days in office, he would draw up a plan for countering cyber-meddling in US elections. He missed that deadline last month, and worse, the White House couldn’t even say if anyone was working on such a project.

On Thursday morning, there was another indication this is not a priority for Trump’s administration.

Each year, the Senate intelligence committee holds a public hearing on global threats to the United States, and the heads of several intelligence agencies appear to discuss the various risks. At this annual hearing on Thursday, there were questions from senators about the Comey firing, yet few answers. (Comey’s replacement, acting director Andrew McCabe, vowed he would inform the committee if anyone tried to impede the bureau’s ongoing Russia investigation, but he refused to comment on Trump’s highly suspicious assertion that Comey thrice told Trump he was not a subject of that investigation.)

One of the more intriguing exchanges was related to the Russian hacking of the 2016 campaign. Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), the senior Democrat on the committee, asked the panel what steps were being taken to prevent a repeat of Moscow’s hack-and-leak attack. He noted that Russia might try a repeat and that other foreign governments could do the same. Warner insisted that the federal government should be working with states to secure voter files and collaborating with social-media companies to address fake news and information warfare. He asked Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, if there were a “strategic effort” within the Trump administration to thwart another covert assault on the US political system.

Coats replied that the Russians have “upped their game” and are spreading their cyber operations “across the globe.” He stated this continued to be a “threat to our democratic process.” But Coats said he was not aware of any “grand strategy” to counter cyberattacks against the US election system. He pointed out that the various intelligence agencies can provide intelligence needed to draft such a strategy. But as far as Coats knew, no one within the Trump administration had the mission of devising an overarching plan on this front.

That was not surprising. Trump has repeatedly referred to the Russia story as fake news or a hoax. He has railed against the ongoing investigations as money-wasting charades. He warmly welcomed Putin’s henchmen into the White House the same week he fired the guy in charge of investigating Moscow’s intervention in the 2016 campaign. And he has not made any public efforts to safeguard elections from foreign intervention. Coats’ remarks were evidence that Trump remains more concerned with defending his political standing than protecting American democracy.

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