Donald Trump could potentially transform America’s intelligence services into tools of “retribution” against domestic political opponents, manipulate intelligence findings to favor authoritarian leaders, and undermine information sharing with U.S. allies if he secures a second term, according to insights from more than a dozen former intelligence officers, Western officials, and lawmakers as reported by NBC News.

Trump’s track record during and after his first term raises significant concerns. His public criticisms of the intelligence community, alleged mishandling of classified information, vows to seek vengeance against political adversaries, and plans by his allies to purge civil servants suspected of being part of a “deep state” suggest that the spy agencies could face irreversible harm.

“I’m very concerned. And I think almost every one of my former colleagues and current colleagues in the intelligence community is very concerned,” said a former national security official who served under Trump. “I haven’t talked to a single senior person who said, ‘Oh, it’s overblown. Don’t worry, he’ll be fine.’”

This article is based on interviews with more than a dozen former intelligence officers — many of whom worked in the Trump administration and had face-to-face meetings with the then-president — as well as Western officials and members of Congress.

Few legal constraints exist on the president’s authority over intelligence agencies, providing Trump with considerable leeway should he expand the number of political appointees in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, and other agencies, according to Glenn Gerstell, who served as general counsel for the National Security Agency from 2015 to 2020.

When it comes to the president’s power over the intelligence community, “the law allows for a hell of a lot of discretion” and Trump would have “a pretty free hand,” Gerstell explained. He added that unless Congress intervenes, a determined president with supportive senior aides could impose significant changes across the executive branch.

Trump’s supporters argue that warnings about the intelligence community’s future under a second Trump administration are exaggerated. Brian Hughes, senior adviser to the Trump presidential campaign, contends that it is President Joe Biden and his administration that have politicized the intelligence agencies, not Trump.

“There is rich irony in hearing some of the deepest, deep-state voices suddenly concern for the institution of legitimate national security intelligence,” Hughes said in an email. “These are some of the same people who routinely worked to undermine American democracy and push the ‘Russia hoax’ to disrupt an American election. Now to hear them criticize a meaningful discussion focused on ensuring a Constitutionally-based national security pathway, and yet again push patently political lies for the corrupt administration they serve is outrageous.”

The primary concern about a potential second Trump administration is whether the president or his team would attempt to use intelligence agencies against domestic political opponents, violating laws that expressly forbid using spy services against Americans.

A historical example of such a violation is Richard Nixon’s administration, which had the CIA gather intelligence on domestic protesters against the Vietnam War. Nixon also attempted to use the CIA to obstruct an FBI investigation into the Watergate scandal.

Trump and some of his former deputies have fueled speculation about drastic actions, discussing vengeance against those they deem threats to democracy. Trump stated at a rally last year, “for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.” He has also pledged to appoint a special prosecutor to target Biden and his family.

Kash Patel, who worked at the Justice and Defense departments during the Trump administration, stated in December that a second Trump administration would pursue “conspirators” in government and the media regarding the 2020 election, which Trump and Patel falsely claim was stolen.

Trump’s campaign has distanced itself from Patel’s remarks.

Fears Among Allies

Foreign allies, concerned about protecting their intelligence sources, may reduce the amount of information they share with U.S. counterparts if Trump wins a second term, according to former officials and lawmakers.

Decades of cooperation and trust between U.S. and allied intelligence agencies could be jeopardized by Trump’s return to the White House, potentially impacting efforts to track terrorist threats, manage international crises, and prepare for conflicts.

“I think some of our allies may withhold intelligence information on subjects such as Russia,” said a former career CIA officer who oversaw clandestine operations in Europe. “And they would do it very carefully. They would ratchet it back so it doesn’t look so obvious, for fear of retribution.”

Trump’s attitude towards classified information, including allegations of mishandling classified documents, and his praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin could make U.S. partners hesitant to share intelligence related to Russia.

“The one thing any intelligence community cares about most is source protection,” the former CIA officer said. “No ally is ever going to come out and say we’re going to turn off intel sharing, but a friendly service would be remiss if such source protection concerns are not of paramount concern, given Trump’s affinity for Putin.”

No More ‘Adults in the Room’

When Trump entered office in 2017, he lacked experience in handling classified information or working with military, diplomatic, or intelligence programs and operations. His public criticisms of the intelligence agencies strained his relationship with the spy services from the start.

However, during his first term, senior figures in his Cabinet, military, and intelligence community — known as the “adults in the room” — managed to steer him away from risky or ill-informed decisions. One such figure was Gina Haspel, who served as CIA director from 2018 to 2021 and protected the agency’s workforce from political pressure.

But in a second Trump term, a career intelligence officer like Haspel is unlikely to be appointed as CIA director. Trump has indicated a preference for deputies who demonstrate strong political loyalty to him.

Trump’s supporters at the Heritage Foundation and other think tanks advocate for replacing tens of thousands of civil servants with political appointees in government agencies, including the 18 federal intelligence agencies. Although the Trump administration attempted this with an executive order in its closing months, the Biden administration quickly reversed it.

The Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” outlines a plan for a future Trump administration to choose a deputy director of the CIA who could “immediately begin to implement the President’s agenda” without needing Senate confirmation. The document calls for additional appointees to assist the director and suggests relocating some directorates outside of northern Virginia.

Robert Litt, former general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, warned that a large influx of political appointees could compromise the integrity of intelligence analysis and lead to unlawful or inappropriate decisions.

Worst-Case Scenarios

In a second Trump White House, China would likely remain the top priority for intelligence agencies. A mission center at the CIA dedicated to Iran might be restored, and a Trump administration would likely reduce in-house analytical teams within ODNI.

The Heritage document argues that former intelligence officials have politicized the work of the spy agencies to promote allegations of Trump’s collusion with Russia and to downplay corruption allegations against Hunter Biden. It calls for revoking security clearances for former intelligence officials who discuss their work in the media without clearance and for auditing past politicization and abuses of intelligence information.

Former intelligence officials are divided on whether a worst-case scenario involving the targeting of domestic political opponents by the spy agencies could occur and how the intelligence workforce and courts would respond. Much will depend on the leaders appointed to the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department. Potential candidates include former Republican Rep. Devin Nunes for CIA director and John Ratcliffe for the director of national intelligence.

A former senior intelligence official believes the intelligence community would resist turning on the American people, but fears a gradual degradation of the agencies if experienced staff resign or are sacked, leading to unpredictable consequences for national security.

John Brennan, former CIA director under President Obama, warns that Trump’s lack of respect for democratic norms and guardrails means no actions should be considered off the table.

Trump’s previous use of his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to dig up dirt on Biden in Ukraine could foreshadow similar missions handed to the CIA under the guise of legitimate intelligence gathering.

Miles Taylor, a former senior official at the Department of Homeland Security during the Trump administration, expressed concern that the secrecy of intelligence work could enable an administration to obscure the true purpose of certain orders, making it difficult for employees to blow the whistle on inappropriate actions.

Many intelligence officers are contemplating securing assignments abroad or leaving for the private sector if Trump wins a second term, Taylor said.

“A lot of them are thinking if Trump wins, it’s a really good time to move on,” he said.

The potential for significant changes and challenges in the intelligence community under a second Trump term highlights the deep concerns among current and former officials. The integrity, effectiveness, and trustworthiness of U.S. intelligence agencies could be at stake, with implications for both domestic and international security. The outcome of the 2024 election will therefore not only shape the political landscape but also determine the future direction of America's intelligence apparatus.