Now that the Presidential candidates will soon be getting classified intelligence briefings, critics on both sides have raised questions about whether either candidate is fit to receive them. On the one hand, Republican nominee Donald Trump has been criticized for unsubstantiated claims he has made and controversial national security positions he has taken while on the campaign trail. On the other, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has been chastised for handling classified emails on a private server while Secretary of State, an act which FBI Director James Comey referred to as being “extremely careless.”
Former CIA Director and Cipher Brief Network member Michael Hayden has weighed in on the controversy, voicing concerns about the intelligence briefings the winning candidate will start receiving the day after being elected. In an interview with The Cipher Brief’s Pam Benson, Hayden raises doubts about whether Trump will accept the more detailed information from the Presidential Daily Brief that may “cut across” his policies.
Hayden first raised his concerns about the intelligence briefings in a New York Times Op-Ed on Wednesday.
Hayden was also one of 49 former senior national security officials who signed a scathing letter denouncing Trump, saying he “would be a dangerous President.” Trump immediately fired back, blaming the signatories “for making the world a dangerous place” and referring to them as “the failed Washington elite.”
Hayden explains why he may take “a pass” on the 2016 Presidential election.
The Cipher Brief: You obviously seem to have reservations about the two presidential candidates receiving intelligence briefings. What are your concerns with each of the nominees?
Michael Hayden: The great thing is between now and the election, the briefings will be kind of intelligence light and not deep dark secrets. That’s fine. That informs the candidates, and they’ll want to be seen as being serious. So they’ll take a briefing maybe two, but not many. They’re very busy, and they don’t want to be forced to sort out in their heads when answering a question, whether they heard the answer from (Director of National Intelligence) Jim Clapper, or their staff, or they read it in the newspaper. Between now and the election, I understand its contentious given the two candidates we have, but it will be fine.
What’s going to happen the morning after the election, though, is one of these two is going to get the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB). The fact is, it’s going to be PDB plus, because there will be a lot more background material in the book than there is for President Barack Obama, because they haven’t been getting the PDB for seven and a half years. I’m not so much concerned about leaking. I’m more concerned about—as I said in the Op-Ed—will these people be open to the messages? Will they be able to accept interpretations that cut across their policies, their politics, or even their personalities? In one case, I kind of think so. In the other case, I don’t.
TCB: Could you elaborate on that?
MH: Sure. Mr. Trump had a long conversation with former Secretary of State Jim Baker and another with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and quite proudly said he didn’t change his mind about anything. And, he routinely characterizes people with a different view as stupid or corrupt or weak. So, what’s it going to feel like when he gets a briefing from some bright intelligence officer that says, “we believe Russian President Vladimir Putin is a serious threat to the stability of the Ukraine?”
TCB: And what about Secretary Clinton?
MH: Absent the email thing, which is not trivial at all, her briefing would actually kind of begin with, “Well, where did we leave off?” because she’s been immersed in this far more than he has. And look, I need to keep repeating this, I’m not endorsing her for the job, but in terms of what you asked me, the briefing to her will be more normal.
TCB: Are you concerned that either one of the candidates might say something after an intelligence briefing that they shouldn’t, based on what they heard during the briefing? Or do you think that the briefing could change what they say?
MH: Number one, the briefings for the candidates aren’t going to reveal deep state secrets. But they will be classified. I’m not so much concerned that something that would cause severe harm to the United States is going to be blurted it out. First of all, there are incredible political costs to either candidate should they do that. And you don’t even have to go into the legal question. I’m just talking about the political cost of having them say “Well, that’s actually classified and he or she shouldn’t have said it.”
The other part that concerns me a little bit is that Mr. Trump has a way of saying, “I’ve heard people were saying…” and so on, without a whole lot of precision with regard to sourcing. A lot of what he says I certainly take with a grain of salt. I think a lot of other Americans do as well. After he starts getting classified briefings, will people begin to give more weight to some of the things he says even though they may in no way be connected to the briefings that he’s gotten form the intelligence community.
TCB: So in other words, people will think he is more informed after the briefing.
MH: Exactly. Some of the things that he would say that a lot of people would be fairly skeptical about, do they now suddenly have more credibility because he’s been getting those intelligence briefing.
TCB: Do you think the candidates’ previous statements or actions might impact how the intelligence briefers present information?
MH: I don’t think it affects the classification, because as I said, the ones for them as candidates are like really good college seminars on steroids. And it doesn’t affect the classification once somebody is the president-elect because then the people have spoken. You’re going to give this person the secrets. So, classification no. The briefing? Yes! You go in there with certain assumptions about your audience. Number one, you go in there making some assumptions about, you know, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” that there’s an agreed body of knowledge. Mr. Trump’s comments on the campaign have been so erratic, inconsistent, and non-fact based, I actually think the intel person is going to have quite a challenge figuring out what the common agreed body of knowledge is before he or she gives that first briefing.
TCB: What do you expect to be accomplished by joining your 49 other national security officials- who served in Republican administrations-in signing the letter that is critical of Trump?
MH: We all knew that the letter would cut two ways: that he would do with it what he has, which is saying, “You see? These are the establishment guys.” You know that argument carries some weight with a lot of people.
And by the way, I think it’s important to point out that the 50 of us represent a very broad spectrum of views. We all worked in republican administrations, but there are those among us, myself included, who have never identified themselves as Republican in any political sense.
The letter should have come as no surprise; a lot of us have already been public about our concerns. We had thought about doing this but had decided to wait, let the political process take its course. Would he begin to, for want of a better phrase, “tack to the center?” Would he be more fact based, more discrete, more careful with his wording? More precise, more consistent? He wasn’t. And so, at some point, we felt that we simply had to sound the alarm with our consensus view that if he governed the way he was talking, it would be quite dangerous, and we had not seen—and frankly no longer expected—evidence that he would actually govern differently than he had been talking. We all went ahead and signed it. I wasn’t the organizer. I was asked several weeks ago, “Would I, could I?” Sure. It would depend on the letter, but sure. A fairly mature draft was circulated. A couple people commented. I didn’t, but I did comment on one of the comments. The final was circulated; people were invited to sign or not sign. And people were invited to ask other folks who might be interested in signing. We got 50 signatures, and we put it out the door. And again, there should be no surprises there. People like us have been expressing these concerns for a while. But, I think we were right in our estimate that it needed to be said. And if you’re looking for evidence of that, look at how much of a news story it became—it still is. I’m glad we did it.
TCB: The letter lists a lot of faults about Trump, but what concerns you the most? What do you fear the most about a Trump presidency if it should happen?
MH: I don’t think he has the temperament or background to function effectively in the foreign policy/security policy/commander-in-chief realm. He views the world as far simpler than it really is: the world is a troubled place, because the people who would have preceded him in office were weak, corrupt, and stupid. In reality the world is a troubled place, because it’s a complicated place. And I just fear someone who thinks that current circumstances are only the product of the incompetence of his predecessors. I think he’s going to have an incredibly rude awakening, and I just don’t know that he has the capacity to either appreciate the complexity of the global situation or to act within that complexity.
TCB: And what concerns you the most or what do you fear the most about a Clinton presidency?
MH: We have an issue on the front or back burner (Clinton’s use of a private email server while Secretary of State)—depending on what’s leading the news—for more than two years. The FBI Director finally puts it “to rest,” and in her first opportunity to speak to the American people about it, she commits an unforced error, a foot fault, and earns four Pinocchios. That’s what concerns me. That reflects on her competence as much as her character.
TCB: One final thing. You’ve indicated you would not support Trump or Clinton, but, as you know, third party candidates rarely garner much support. What options are left for you?
MH: I think the options that are left for me are to pay attention to the folks who respond to Article I (the legislative branch) and Article III (the judicial branch) of the constitution. And I may take a pass on the Article II (executive branch) choice.
