Former CIA operative John Kiriakou reveals that no U.S. President truly controls the CIA, as career intelligence officials simply “wait out” elected leaders whose directives they dislike.
Key Takeaways
- CIA officials often remain in power for 25-35 years, outlasting presidents and allowing them to circumvent presidential directives they disagree with
- Kiriakou was targeted by the CIA and FBI, eventually imprisoned, after exposing the agency’s torture program
- President Trump’s assessment of a “deep state” was validated by Kiriakou’s experiences within the intelligence community
- The intelligence community’s power structure represents a significant challenge to presidential authority and constitutional governance
The Deep State is Real: CIA Whistleblower Confirms Trump’s Warnings
In a revelatory interview with Tucker Carlson, former CIA Counterintelligence Operations Officer John Kiriakou confirmed what many conservatives have long suspected: the intelligence community operates with virtual autonomy from presidential oversight. Kiriakou, who served the agency for years before becoming a whistleblower, provided a firsthand account of how intelligence agencies can effectively neutralize presidential authority when they disagree with directives. His testimony provides crucial validation of concerns President Trump raised during his first term about the existence and power of what he termed the “deep state.”
“Donald Trump took a lot of guff in his first term when he used on a regular basis the term ‘deep state.’ I argued from the very beginning, it is a deep state. Maybe you don’t like the terminology. You don’t have to call it the deep state. You can call it the federal bureaucracy. You can call it the state. But the truth is that it exists,” said John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterintelligence Operations Officer
Kiriakou’s confirmation of the existence of a deep state represents a significant watershed moment in American politics. The intelligence veteran’s testimony aligns perfectly with what conservatives have observed throughout President Trump’s presidency: unelected bureaucrats working to undermine the agenda of democratically elected officials. With Trump now back in office for his second term, his appointments of trusted figures like John Ratcliffe to oversee the CIA and Kash Patel to lead the FBI signal a renewed effort to bring these agencies under proper constitutional control.
Presidents Come and Go, But CIA Officials Stay for Decades
One of the most alarming revelations from Kiriakou’s interview was his explanation of how intelligence officials maintain their power despite changes in administration. The longevity of CIA careers creates a dynamic where agency officials can simply ignore presidential directives they dislike, knowing they will outlast any given administration. This structural imbalance fundamentally undermines the constitutional principle of civilian control over intelligence and military operations, effectively creating a shadow government that operates according to its own agenda rather than the will of voters.
“This is another problem. It’s that presidents come and go every four years, every eight years. But these CIA people, they’re there for 25, 30, 35 years. They don’t go anywhere. So if they don’t like a president or if a president orders them to do something that they don’t want to do, they just wait because they know they can wait him out, and then he’s not going to be president anymore. They can continue on with whatever plan the blob or the deep state wants to implement,” said by John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterintelligence Operations Officer.
During the interview, Carlson explicitly addressed this power imbalance, asking Kiriakou if the relationship between the presidency and intelligence agencies had been inverted. “I know we’re getting far-field, and we will get back to your story, but it doesn’t sound like, so if you look at the org chart, the president controls the CIA. But you’re describing a situation where the CIA kind of controls the president,” said Tucker Carlson. Kiriakou’s affirmative response confirmed what many have suspected: the organizational chart of constitutional governance bears little resemblance to operational reality.
Personal Cost of Standing Against the CIA
Kiriakou’s personal story illustrates the severe consequences faced by those who challenge intelligence agency power. After exposing the CIA’s torture program, he became a target for retribution from the very agencies he had served. The FBI conducted extensive surveillance of his life for years, attempting to entrap him in espionage charges. Eventually, under pressure from John Brennan and others within the intelligence community, Kiriakou was imprisoned. His account details how the FBI and CIA cooperated to punish a whistleblower who had revealed uncomfortable truths about agency operations.
“An interesting interview between Tucker Carlson and Former CIA Counterintelligence Operations Officer John Kiriakou about being targeted by the CIA and FBI after telling the truth about CIA torture ops,” said Tucker Carlson.
The legal precedents established in Kiriakou’s case have subsequently been used against others who challenge intelligence community narratives, including cases against President Trump himself. Kiriakou’s experience with a Clinton-appointed judge who handed down his sentence highlights how the judicial system can be leveraged against political opponents. His attempts to secure a pardon were unsuccessful, demonstrating the difficulty of obtaining justice when powerful intelligence agencies are determined to make an example of someone they view as disloyal.
The Transformation of American Intelligence
Kiriakou outlined how the CIA fundamentally changed after 9/11, shifting from an intelligence-gathering organization to one increasingly focused on paramilitary operations and enhanced interrogation techniques. This transformation expanded the agency’s power while reducing oversight, creating the perfect conditions for abuses of authority. The agency’s historical involvement in controversial programs like MKUltra and alleged connections to political assassinations raise serious questions about the extent to which intelligence agencies should operate without robust congressional and presidential oversight.
As President Trump begins his second term with appointments designed to restore proper control over these agencies, Kiriakou’s testimony provides important context for understanding the resistance these efforts will likely face. The entrenchment of career officials who have accumulated decades of influence and connections won’t easily yield to reform efforts. Yet the constitutional health of our republic depends on restoring proper civilian control over all aspects of government, including its most secretive agencies. The coming years will determine whether elected officials can successfully reassert their rightful authority over an intelligence community accustomed to operating by its own rules.
