Intel breafing

To Woo a Skeptical Trump, Intelligence Chiefs Talk Economics Instead of Spies

Intelligence officials who brief the president have warned him about Chinese espionage in bottom-line business terms. They have used Black Sea shipping figures to demonstrate the effect of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. And they have filled the daily threat briefing with charts and graphs of economic data.

In an effort to accommodate President Trump, who has attacked them publicly as “naïve” and in need of going “back to school,” the nation’s intelligence agencies have revamped their presentations to focus on subjects their No. 1 customer wants to hear about — economics and trade.

Intelligence officers, steeped in how Mr. Trump views the world, now work to answer his repeated question: Who is winning? What the president wants to know, according to former officials, is what country is making more money or gaining a financial advantage.

While the professionals do not criticize Mr. Trump’s focus, they do question whether those interests are crowding out intelligence on threats like terrorism and the maneuvers of traditional adversaries, developments with foreign militaries or geopolitical events with international implications.

Intel briefing

Intel briefing is a dish which tastes better when it's served by trustworthy chef.

Commentary: Mr. Trump, here’s what other presidents learned from the CIA

Presidential transitions are perilous times. One tradition of creating continuity is for commanders-in-chief in waiting to be briefed by the Central Intelligence Agency. Some presidents-elect can’t get enough of the top-secret stuff. Some half-listen as they gear up in great haste to take office.

Until now, none has disdained the secret briefs, denigrated the CIA, and declared, in the words of Donald J. Trump, “I’m, like, a smart person” – declining to hear almost everything and anything the spies have to say.

This willful ignorance has no real precedent. It may well be that Trump really doesn’t want to know about Russia’s hacking the 2016 election, an epochal event that he doesn’t believe actually happened. He may think he that he doesn’t need to know more about North Korea’s nukes, Syria’s army and the fall of Aleppo, or the correlation of forces in the Middle East. He may spend the next five weeks – or the next four years – saying, in effect, my mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts.