It’s still a bit weird to see my name and situation referenced in the international press after colliding with the Trump administration over scientific integrity and analytic independence earlier this year. Although less common, such references nevertheless pop up in a Twitter mention or a Reddit post on occasion.
The strange, tumultuous summer kicked off with an unexpectedly public dispute with the White House over a June 5 unclassified briefing to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) on the national security implications of climate change. As the US intelligence community’s primary expert on environmental and ecological change, I was asked to provide testimony and draft the written Statement for the Record for the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (“INR” in the 3-letter acrospeak beloved in DC, referring to the oldest civilian intelligence agency in the country).
Hold the science, please
At the heart of the dispute was the untenable position adopted by the White House Office of Legislative Affairs (WHLA) that a testimony on the implications of climate change should not contain science. Specifically, they argued that two sections, Scientific Baseline and Stresses to Humans and Societies, were out of scope of the hearing because of their scientific nature and needed to be deleted (which represented 5 pages of a 10 page document). WHLA argued that the intelligence community’s role was to speak only to the implications of climate change.
The madness of WHLA’s argument becomes apparent, however, when one swaps climate science out for another discipline. For example:
- A witness briefing Congress on the dangers of an incoming near-Earth object (NEO) would first describe what is known about that NEO [mass, velocity, trajectory, structural integrity, etc.] before turning to the potential damage it could cause upon impact with the Earth.
- An expert describing an ongoing infectious disease outbreak with pandemic potential would necessarily begin with a robust description of what is known about the outbreak [pathogen, transmission, mortality, etc.].
As in all risk assessments, one must first characterize a risk (what do we know?) before turning to its implications (what are the possible outcomes?). Using climate science to characterize the potential risks from climate change is obviously necessary, and doing otherwise would be analytic malpractice.
I have found that the logic exercise of replacing climate science with most any another science, as above, helps fan away the obfuscating rhetoric dust that the denialist machinery has been largely successful kicking into the air.
Does not comport
An email in my possession, however, gave away the game when a senior WHLA official declared that INR’s written testimony was problematic because it did not “comport with the views of the Administration.” Indeed, a National Security Council (NSC) official had for months been pushing a fringe-minority position on climate science, and helped create a highly charged political environment surrounding climate science in which INR’s testimony landed.
The NSC had also offered unusually charged comments on the draft testimony that were well outside what would be considered acceptable interagency discourse. Many of these comments were tangential to the particular point being made or were so political that they were effectively unanswerable.
We did not accept White House demands that science be stricken from our document and WHLA withheld clearance, effectively suppressing the testimony of INR to its oversight committee in the House. I was permitted, however, to appear before HPSCI and give a 5-minute oral summary of the testimony and answer Members’ questions.
Objective truth is not a policy position
Importantly, INR had argued before the dispute that as a key element of the US intelligence community whose primary function is to provide analysis independent of policy, the bureau’s testimony should not have even been subjected to White House clearance in the first place. INR was not supported in this position within some elements within State, most importantly the Bureau of Legislative Affairs. To me this must be a bedrock principle adopted by all future administrations, Democratic or Republican, to protect the integrity, and morale, of the intelligence community.
The intelligence community tries to deliver objective truth to decisionmakers — truth that persists irrespective of who occupies the White House. Adopting a fringe position on climate change, or peddling any reality-bending narrative on a topic of significant consequence, puts the White House on a collision course with those who believe in this objective truth.
After the hearing, I came to understand that there was little left for me to achieve in my position, especially after the dispute become the focus of a few news cycles. More than most officers in the intelligence community, I interacted often with the public in discussions of ecological security issues. After the experiences of the prior months, I wondered whether I could continue public engagements without being tainted by questions about my own professional integrity. These issues were too important to me to wait around for a possible reprioritization in a future administration.
Now what?
My last day in government was July 12. I remain between jobs although finding myself oddly busy with public speaking, panels, and generally reconstituting myself after a pretty grueling ten years of public service with few breaks. Spending quality time with 22-month old daughter has been a nice benefit.
After stints in academia and the government, one could assume my next logical step might be working ecological security issues in a DC think tank or in industry. Possibly. While figuring out my next steps, I created the Ecological Futures Group as a full-time vehicle to further explore the implications of global ecological disruption. I remain committed to a science-first, evidence-based approach to minimize damage to people and societies through a deeper understanding of these trends that will help define this turbulent 21st century.