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

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of 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.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend