AP Images
In a move both alarming and contradictory, President-elect Donald Trump has called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) — a government entity emblematic of the Deep State — to intervene in matters of domestic security. This comes in the wake of violent incidents involving former Army personnel.
Trump’s Call
In a typically combative post on January 3, the president-elect denounced the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and Democratic prosecutors as “incompetent and corrupt.” He accused them of focusing on political attacks against him rather than protecting Americans from what he described as “violent SCUM” infiltrating “all aspects of our government and our Nation itself.”
Trump followed this with a puzzling call for the CIA to intervene “NOW, before it is too late,” warning that the nation is teetering on the edge of “breaking down.”
This, of course, is the same agency known for orchestrating coups, enabling surveillance overreach, and wielding unchecked power behind the scenes. For Trump to present the CIA as the savior of a crumbling nation not only clashes with his anti-Establishment rallying cries, but also raises serious questions about his commitment to accountability and justice — or lack thereof.
Radical Islamists and Immigration
First of all, who is the “scum” Trump views as a threat to the nation? Moments before calling for CIA intervention, Trump pointed to “Radical Islamic Terrorism,” blaming it on President Joe Biden’s open-borders policies.
His narrative links radical Islamism to recent attacks in New Orleans and Las Vegas, framing them as direct consequences of lax immigration enforcement.
However, the facts complicate Trump’s narrative. While open-border policies have undeniably posed significant challenges for America, they cannot be directly linked to these specific attacks. Both alleged perpetrators, Shamsud-Din Jabbar and Matthew Livelsberger, were U.S. citizens with military backgrounds, not immigrants.
These incidents highlight a broader issue that Trump’s rhetoric overlooks: the growing involvement of individuals with military experience in ideologically driven attacks. The majority of veterans and service members serve honorably. However, data show a concerning rise in extremist activity among those with military ties.
According to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), as cited by The Associated Press, individuals with military backgrounds are disproportionately represented in extremist plots. This is particularly true for plots involving mass casualties.
Trump’s emphasis on “Radical Islamic Terrorism” as the primary threat oversimplifies a complex issue. This approach sidesteps the responsibility of U.S. institutions, including the military, to confront incidents of extremism within their ranks. Additionally, by framing the problem solely as one of immigration, Trump risks inflaming public fears while ignoring deeper, systemic causes. Those include the destabilizing effects of aggressive foreign policies that drain American resources and fuel resentment at home and abroad.
How Would the CIA “Get Involved”?
If the CIA were to act on Trump’s call to root out “scum” within the government and “the nation itself,” it would likely operate in a legally gray area. Its official mission prohibits domestic surveillance, but such actions could circumvent these restrictions.
Most likely, within the Five Eyes (FVEY) international intelligence alliance, British intelligence might be enlisted, as it has been, to conduct surveillance on Americans. This approach would bypass legal restrictions on domestic spying by outsourcing such activities to allied nations.
Further, to analyze vast datasets to identify individuals deemed threats, the agency would need to leverage and deepen partnerships with private tech firms like Palantir. Co-founded and run by Peter Thiel, Trump’s close ally and donor, Palantir, a current contractor to the CIA, FBI and the Department of Defense (DOD), is long-recognized as an “all-seeing eye” that knows “everything about you” and is already heavily involved in U.S. intelligence operations at home and abroad.
Possible operations could extend further, involving covert infiltration of organizations, surveillance and profiling of government officials and military personnel, and expanded cyber-espionage capabilities.
Notably, profiling gained traction during Trump’s first term under Attorney General Bill Barr. Barr advocated for “pre-crime” technologies designed to predict and prevent criminal behavior before it occurs. His push for data-driven surveillance established the groundwork for expansive profiling measures. These methods have drawn sharp criticism for relying on biased algorithms and incomplete data. They have also raised serious concerns about clear violations of Fourth Amendment protections.
If the CIA were to adopt similar methods against Americans under the guise of public safety, it would deepen a system that prioritizes control over civil liberties.
The CIA’s notorious history of overstepping its mandate adds to these concerns. From domestic spying programs like Operation CHAOS in the 1960s and 1970s to its involvement in international coups, the agency has repeatedly operated beyond the bounds of accountability and legality.
CIA and Radical Islamists
During his first term, Trump famously — and not without justification — accused President Barack Obama of “founding ISIS” by withdrawing troops from Iraq, thereby creating a power vacuum that extremist groups were quick to exploit.
Yet, Trump’s current narrative ignores a critical historical factor. That is the role of the CIA in shaping the very extremist groups he decries. Social-media users were swift to point out this connection. “Whenever they say ‘Taliban,’ ‘Al Qaeda,’ or ‘ISIS,’ my brain translates it to ‘CIA/Mossad’,” wrote one of them.
For decades, the CIA supported violent Islamist factions in the Middle East. Most notably, it happened during the Cold War, when it armed and trained groups to counter Soviet influence. One example is Operation Cyclone, which took place from 1979 to 1992. This covert program involved arming and financing the Afghan mujahideen in Afghanistan to resist the Soviet invasion.
Beyond Afghanistan, the CIA collaborated with Islamist groups in other regions. In the 1950s and 1960s, it supported elements of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to undermine Gamal Abdel Nasser’s socialist government and Soviet ties. In the 1980s, the agency provided indirect backing to Islamist factions opposing Syria’s Soviet-aligned regime.
These alliances highlight a recurring flaw in U.S. foreign policy. The prioritization of short-term geopolitical goals often comes at the expense of long-term stability and ethical considerations. By aligning with extremist groups, the CIA has frequently undermined values of liberty and fueled violence. This approach has left civilian populations to bear the brunt of the resulting instability, and eroded America’s moral standing on the global stage.
Worse still, these actions have directly undermined American security. Some groups empowered by the CIA’s interventions have turned hostile to the United States. Examples include the Taliban and ISIS, which have perpetuated cycles of violence and terrorism.
CIA and False Flags
Building on this troubling history, some commentators have connected current events to the CIA’s Cold War-era Operation Gladio. Investigative journalist Whitney Webb is among those drawing these parallels.
Operation Gladio relied on clandestine networks in Western Europe. These networks orchestrated acts of violence, often staging false-flag attacks attributed to extremist groups. These actions aimed to manipulate political outcomes and suppress opposition to the U.S. Webb warns that similar strategies could be repurposed today under the guise of combating domestic terror.
Together, the CIA’s history of empowering extremist factions and its role in orchestrating covert operations like Gladio illustrate a recurring pattern of prioritizing power over principles, with devastating consequences for global stability and American values. So why would Trump, who who built his platform on defeating the Deep State, now trust one of its most infamous institutions?
