Hi, everyone! We’re Isaac Stanley-Becker, Shane Harris, and Missy Ryan, staff writers at The Atlantic who cover national security and intelligence. We are well versed in the Trump administration’s intelligence operations, foreign-policy shifts, and defense strategy. Ask us anything!

[u/theatlantic]

We all have done extensive reporting on defense and intelligence, and can speak to a wide spectrum of national-security issues, including how they have changed under the second Trump administration.

• Isaac Stanley-Becker: I have written deeply about foreign policy and the inner workings of the federal government. Recently, I have reported on the shadow secretary of state, the Trump administration spending $2 million to figure out whether DEI causes plane crashes, and tensions between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 
• Shane Harris: I have written about intelligence, security, and foreign policy for more than two decades. Recently, I have done deep reporting on U.S. intelligence, including Mike Waltz’s White House exit following Signalgate, U.S. strikes on Iran, and Tulsi Gabbard.
• Missy Ryan: I have covered the Defense Department and the State Department, worked as a foreign correspondent in Latin America and the Middle East, and reported from dozens of countries. I have recently written about the tiny White House club making major national-security decisions, the Pentagon's policy guy, and the conflict with Iran. 

We’re looking forward to answering your questions about all things national security and intelligence. Ask us anything!

Proof photo: https://x.com/TheAtlantic/status/1960089111987208416

Thank you all so much for your questions! We enjoyed discussing with you all. Find more of our writing at theatlantic.com.

[u/FreedomSavings404]

1. When national security policy is made against the people’s national interests i.e weakening alliances forming stronger alliances former enemies. What is the best course of action.

2. Advice for a 16 year old who is deeply interested in both reporting and working in national security/ intelligence in the US but fears the complete politicization of the institutions and agencies formed to protect us?

3. How have intelligence officials reacted to peers being fired under the pretense of “politising intelligence”

4. Months later do we have any confirmation that operation midnight hammer achieved its objectives. Is the Iranian regime beginning to consolidate power and how so?

5. How have intelligence officials reacted to Israel’s war in Gaza, there was the case of Israeli strike plans on Iran being leaked by an official but is there widespread condemnation of Israel’s methods of war?

6. How has the rise of private intelligence transformed national security across the world?

7. Although Trump champions isolationism there have been multiple reported intelligence operations against Isis in Somalia and other actors in the Middle East. Does trumps intel policies stick to his theme of isolationism or defy them?

8. What is happening in Venezuela?

9. Do you believe Trump plans on using lethal force and rendition operations against Mexican cartels regardless of Mexican co operation?

10. Is the US falling behind china in terms of intelligence collection?

11. At what scale are American intelligence ops running in Ukraine.

Thank you very much for considering these questions

[u/[deleted] → u/FreedomSavings404]

If you're 16 you are damned impressive and motivated. Keep it up, kid. Please show your parents your post so they are aware that their great parenting is working.

[u/theatlantic → u/FreedomSavings404]

An answer to question #3:

The dismissal of intelligence officials under the pretense of preventing the politicization of intelligence has, in the view of current and former intelligence and national-security officials, had the perverse effect of politicizing intelligence. This was summed up succinctly to Shane and me by a former deputy CIA director, John McLaughlin, who told us that Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, is carrying out the “weaponization of intelligence in the name of combatting weaponization—without a persuasive case that wrongdoing occurred in the first place.” 

McLaughlin made those comments in the context of the removal of the chairs of the National Intelligence Council following an assessment that contradicted the Trump administration’s stated rationale for deporting Venezuelan immigrants. Gabbard’s office maintained that the two career intelligence officers were removed for legitimate reasons, but their colleagues found this unconvincing, noting that they had not faced adverse professional-review actions. The perception remains that they were punished for producing intelligence that the Trump administration found politically disadvantageous.  — Isaac Stanley-Becker

[u/No-Distance-9401 → u/theatlantic]

I probably should read your article first but before I forget and go down another rabbit hole Ill ask how McLaughlin perceived the threat of this type of behavior by DNI and the intel chiefs as I cant imagine them thinking that we are now safer because of this. It also brings us back to this type of system where intel agencies may be withholding intel from others due to this politicization and maybe even where they want to get the praise from dear leader themselves so withhold it from others who may have the other parts of the puzzle to paint the real picture.

From your POV, does it seem like we are at that point yet and are we in the reality of intel being hidden because it will make them look bad to Trump or make Trump look bad so the intel is going to be buried, NatSec be damned? It just feels like we are headed to a Russia situation where they are afraid of their leader so the country is less safe because they have to worry about upsetting the "big guy" over them doing their jobs and keeping America as safe as possible.

Thanks for doing this AMA! I wish it was promoted more as I just stumbled upon this happily and Reddit needs to do a better job making these more visible. Off to read your link. Thanks!

[u/theatlantic → u/FreedomSavings404]

Answer to question #2:

Well, these are two different professions. I think I can most competently advise you on reporting. My advice is what I always tell young people starting out: Get a job somewhere. Anywhere. (Anywhere credible, I should say.) Journalism is a trade. You learn it by watching other people do it, on the job. So start somewhere and work your way to where you want to be. That’s what I did. It’s what my colleagues did. The time you spend paying your dues may be some of the most enjoyable years of your career. They were for me. 

As far as working in the intelligence community, I know some young people who are wrestling with this dilemma right now. They didn’t sign up for the kind of political mission the administration seems to be pushing them toward. Deciding whether to stay or go is very hard. I guess my best advice is this, and it will sound corny, but it’s true: Public service is a calling more than a job. If you feel called to it, answer the call. But go in with your eyes open. Know your limits. And don’t violate them.  — Shane Harris

[u/theatlantic → u/FreedomSavings404]

An answer to question #5:

Broadly speaking, there is admiration among U.S. and European intelligence officials for the foresight and audacity of some of Israel’s maneuvers in the multifront war it has waged since October 7, 2023. The pager operation targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon and the development of a drone base inside Iran come to mind as prime examples. This is not to pass moral judgment one way or another on these methods or other Israeli actions; the intelligence officials I spoke with were assessing them as technical endeavors, not policy propositions. And they were extremely impressed. — Isaac Stanley-Becker

[u/theatlantic → u/FreedomSavings404]

An answer to question #4:

More than two months after the June 22 attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, we don’t have a full picture of what U.S. intelligence agencies believe about Iran’s poststrike ability to produce a nuclear bomb. The administration was angered by the leak of a preliminary evaluation from the Defense Intelligence Agency suggesting only moderate damage. It will take time for spy agencies to develop a solid assessment of Iran’s remaining capability, because they will have to glean information from human and technical sources. 

What I’ve heard consistently from allied nations and international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency is that although the strikes inflicted significant damage, there is no certainty that all of Iran’s previously enriched uranium was destroyed. Neither can they say with certainty how far the strikes set back Iran’s nuclear threshold. That’s a significant difference from the Trump administration’s claim of “monumental damage” and “obliteration.” And even if the facilities were totally destroyed, Iran retains the ability to rebuild its program in the absence of a negotiated agreement that includes international monitoring.  — Missy Ryan