The International Issues Discussion Series (IID) is a student-led forum at Toronto Metropolitan University and University of Toronto that aims to bring political speakers to both campuses to engage in a variety of topics. Their About section on their web page states “It is a strictly non-partisan, unaffiliated, and apolitical group that welcomes all students to get involved and further their understanding of the world today.”

This assertion was cast in doubt when they posted their event titled “The Politicization of U.S. Intelligence: Causes and Consequences” to be held on Oct. 4 by former CIA analyst and adjunct professor at Georgetown University, John A Gentry. Earlier this year, Gentry released the book Neutering the CIA: Why US Intelligence Versus Trump Has Long-Term Consequences. Some may assume that the concept Gentry proposes has to do with disparaging comments Trump made towards the CIA. His issue is primarily the opposite.

He opened his talk with “two stories.” The first was that, during his tenure at the CIA, he faced politicization from the Reagan government to present the USSR as worse than they actually were. Then, his second story is that since his talk has to do with Trump, some may think he’s a Trump supporter. “I usually don't talk much about my politics in public,” he said. “But I did not vote for him in 2016. I did not have in 2020 and I will not next year if it comes to that.”

Whether or not Gentry supports Trump with a vote, his arguments line up perfectly from the US far-right, and is virtually indistinguishable from that of Trump supporters.

Unstable Foundations

The cracks in Gentry’s analysis began early.

His talk focused primarily on public and private statements made by those in the intelligence community that directly attack former US President Donald Trump. But before this was reached, Gentry stated that the CIA faced four periods of politicization in the past. All but his experience with the Reagan White House in 1986 were designated “left.”

This includes the late 1960s, when he claims the CIA gave President Nixon “bad intelligence information” regarding the situation in Vietnam and Cambodia in order to prevent a US invasion in the latter country.

It’s important to note that this may be Gentry’s interpretation of CIA reports that the US war in Vietnam was a bad idea.

Whatever would give them that perspective?

The second period of left politicization was during George W. Bush’s years. Gentry characterizes this period as when CIA analyst Mary McCarthy was fired, as she was accused of leaking information to Washington Post reporter Dana Priest. McCarthy denies that allegation.

This is a curious interpretation, as Priest was known at the time for exposing CIA Black Sites which the agency had used to detain suspects of terrorism in clandestine areas, away from any due process.

Gentry then moved onto the focus of his talk: politicization from the CIA towards then-candidate and then US President Donald Trump. He began his argument by pointing to former deputy director of the CIA Michael Morell’s New York Times op-ed endorsing Hillary Clinton for President in August of 2016.

“So what he did here is grossly violate a long standing ethic in the intelligence community,” Gentry said. “Which is that you keep your politics to yourself and you do not recommend policies to anybody.”

Someone should tell the CIA to keep their politics to themselves, and not spread them to Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, etc.

Diversity As the Enemy

Gentry summarized what he believed spurred this flood of Trump criticism from intelligence figures like Morrell, former CIA director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Of most interest, was his highlight of a 2011 Executive Order by Barack Obama.

“What the executive order did was it enabled creation of so-called ‘diversity offices,’” Gentry explained, adding that those who didn’t go along with the order “were punished.”

“This meant that there were altered efforts to hire and promote favoured demographic groups.”

Gentry argued that this allowed agencies to evade the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. This act included many things, but even a brief glance at the Wikipedia page summarizes the legislation’s provisions that protect collective bargaining, allow appeals for wrongful firings and even provide protections for “whistleblowers.” Gentry, perhaps unsurprisingly, views Edward Snowden, the man who exposed the NSA’s spy network, as a traitor.

“I have no sympathy for Snowden,” he said.

Before this order, Gentry cited former CIA director Leon Panetta’s mission to increase diversity at the agency. “So it went from 22 to 30 per cent in just three years, which is a lot given the low turnover.”

Wow. Eight whole per cent over three years. Devastating.

Brennan, apparently, was a ”longtime supporter of what became known as the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion program.”

Here are things that Brennan did that show he politicized the CIA.

• He hired more minorities
• He promoted women
• He wore a rainbow lanyard

“He’s wearing a politically charged lanyard and he induced people in his immediate circle, other managers, to wear rainbow lanyards as a fairly direct injection of politics into the CIA's workforce on a regular basis,” Gentry explained.

To support this point, he cited notorious war hawk John Bolton as saying this was the most politicized period in CIA history.

It was at this moment I had to actively work against bursting out in a fit of laughter.

Gentry argued that this sways agencies to the left, since one can gather the overall views of these communities from political surveys. How, exactly, this manifests as left-wing infiltration of the CIA can only be answered by a frothing reactionary. Only they could think of no other reason why someone from a marginalized community would, on average, not support Republicans.

It’s useless refuting this point, but believing that marginalized people should have rights is not “politicizing,” unless you believe the concept of equity as up for political debate. It’s not as though Brennan waved an IRA flag and instructed each manager under his watch to sing “Come Out Ye Black and Tans.” This push to diversify the CIA can much more easily be understood as a way to pinkwash away the agency’s crimes of humanity. This will continue to be useful because, as former CIA director James Woolsey all but confirmed, these actions continue to this day.

Gentry’s obsession with diversity was the mainstay of his talk. He carefully avoided phrases like “cultural Marxism,” “woke” or “forced agendas.” (Though one slide highlighted this diversity push as the ideology of “social Marxists” like Antonio Gramsci and, who else, the Frankfurt School). This was almost certainly an intentional choice. At one point he presented a slide about how students had been “indoctrinated by teachers with left-wing politics,” and wanted to “spread the word” of their political views. The best avenue to do this, according to Gentry, is by JOINING THE CIA.

“These were people who were coming from being reasonably comfortable universities,” Gentry said. “Who increasingly had been interested in encouraging students to become activists in politically important ways, particularly regarding social issues that I mentioned.” The social issues like being gay is fine, actually.

Sorry… What?

After Gentry wrapped up his presentation, the floor was opened up for a brief Q&A. Most of the questions asked for Gentry’s take on geopolitics and the ramifications of this trend for intelligence gathering. When I had a chance to speak at the mic, instead of lambasting his bat-shit analysis of the CIA as leftist because Black people work there more, I chose a different tact. I wanted to know how he could hold this view of the CIA as leftist contrasted with their material actions.

So I brought up the CIA’s “controversial history globally” (an understatement to be sure, but done so I wouldn’t be immediately dismissed) then asked how he could reconcile Brennan as a leftist politicizer when, under his watch, the CIA broke into the computer files of the Senate Panel investigation the agency for its torture program, even after Brennan lied about it.

“Since that happened after this 2011 shift,” I asked. “How do you reconcile moves like that with this leftist influence?”

“Probably the actual case was not related,” he answered. “What it may well have been is part of the ongoing normal, for better or worse, competitive relationship between CIA as an executive branch agency and the Senate Intelligence community committee as a congressional oversight committee.”

“It looks to me like it's a lot more that than a politicization issue.”

The CIA maliciously violated the law to protect themselves from repercussions of needlessly torturing people? Well you see, that’s not related at all. Different branches of government simply butt heads.

Only one other question posed to Gentry could charitably be described as “challenging.” An audience member asked what positives can come from diversity, seemingly accepting his initial premise on the subject. Gentry said the CIA values a “diversity of perspectives,” before explaining that there had always been gay people at the CIA, but were in the closet due to blackmail possibilities. Despite being pressured to be in the closet, they operated as analysts just fine.

For context, my notes read as follows:

“It’s been a long time since people were excluded from the Central Intelligence community.”

“Gays”

GAYS!!!!

THEY WERE IN THE CLOSET AT THE CIA SO IT’S FINE

Implications Left Hanging

Gentry’s talk could only be described as incoherent reaction, dressed up under the guise of thoughtful academic critique.

His presentation was littered with quotes from former CIA officials he interviewed for his book, lamenting that they had to be selective with who they trusted due to “political correctness.” Officials are divided along ideological lines purely on whether or not they publicly supported Donald Trump. If they publicly criticized him, they were “politicizing,” if they didn’t, they were “apolitical.” Every other factor of their politics, or the CIA’s at large, was discarded.

One of the resulting consequences from this, Gentry warned, was that US intelligence would be trusted less. It was unclear how the CIA’s entire history, now more widely known than ever before, plays no role in the declining trustworthiness of US intelligence agencies. But that’s essentially his point. The CIA’s intelligence was unmarred by ideology before “they” were forcefully entered into the ranks.

The interesting thing about Gentry’s theories is that most of it was left in the margins. The gold standard was before this “forced” diversity. Simply presenting any contrasting opinion to right-wing presidents makes you a leftist. Trump didn’t defund intelligence agencies, so was he really that antagonistic? These points are raised then dropped, without any exploration into their wider ramifications. It’s a way to sneak reactionary conservatism into the discussion as the rational position.

That’s why my question was answered as friction between government departments. Governments are bloated, inefficient and constantly butting heads. These clashes happen, the actual motivations are irrelevant. Now can we please pine for the golden years of the CIA? Of course, barring those multiple occasions when leftists got their meaty hooks into the agency.