Trump’s Intelligence Purge Is a Nightmare for National Security
President Trump’s justification for sweeping layoffs among the top brass of intelligence and military agencies raises serious questions, particularly when loyalty appears to be defined less by allegiance to the U.S. Constitution than by the president’s personal or political agenda.
Last week, President Donald Trump fired the head of the National Security Agency (NSA) and U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM). Though Trump campaigned on downsizing the federal government, the removal of four-star Gen. Timothy Haugh was one few could have seen coming.
Haugh was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate in 2023 to lead the agency and the command. Though appointed to the posts by former President Joe Biden, Haugh has been seen as largely apolitical.
He worked in signals intelligence and was a career military officer who likely understood the nation’s challenges in the cyber domain from near-peer adversaries, rogue states, and criminal actors.
Not surprisingly, lawmakers expressed outrage and concern over Haugh’s removal.
“We’re under attack, and the president just irresponsibly removed our most important general from the field,” Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, told reporters in response to Haugh’s ouster last Thursday.
“This is an outrageous decision.”
Military officers are often relieved of command for a loss of confidence, as was the case of Captain David Snowden, the commanding officer of the U.S. Navy’s Nimitz-class nuclear-powered carrier after it collided with a commercial ship in the Mediterranean in February. Haugh’s case was due to a lack of loyalty to Trump.
Why Did Haugh Get the Axe?
The removal of Haugh, along with NSA Deputy Director Wendy Noble, for perceived disloyalty was reportedly urged on by far-right activist and conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, a close ally to Trump.
It wasn’t just Sen. King who responded angrily at the firing of Haugh and Noble.
“He was fired with no public explanation,” Don Bacon (R-Neb.), chair of the House Armed Services Committee’s cyber subcommittee, also posted on X on Friday. “This action sets back our Cyber and Signals Intelligence operations.”
The best explanation the public received came from Loomer, who took to social media soon after Haugh and Noble were fired.
“NSA Director Tim Haugh and his deputy Wendy Noble have been disloyal to President Trump. That is why they have been fired,” she wrote in a post on X.
“[sic] As a Biden appointee, General Haugh had no place serving in the Trump admin given the fact that he was HAND PICKED by General Milley, who was accused of committing treason by President Trump. Why would we want an NSA Director who was referred to Biden after being hand-selected by Milley, who told China he would side with them over Trump!?!?”
A Purge in the National Security Council
The purge went deeper than just the NSA and USCYBERCOM. Trump also fired at least six members of the National Security Council, which advises the president on national security and foreign policy. On Monday afternoon, the official NSC page on WhiteHouse.gov had a “404 Page Not Found” error message.
The NSC aims to act as a committee that advises the president on national security and foreign policy matters and coordinates policies with government agencies.
“NSC was established by statute in 1947 to create an interdepartmental body to advise the President on national security matters. More specifically, the NSC was created to integrate domestic, foreign, and military policies related to national security and to facilitate cooperation among the military services and other government departments and agencies in national security matters,” the official Congressional website explained.
While on Air Force One, Trump told reporters that it is customary to fire those “people that we don’t like or people that we don’t think can do the job or people that may have loyalties to somebody else. You’ll always have that.”
Trump didn’t explain who the people he fired had been loyal to, but officers like Gen. Haugh would have sworn an alliance to the Constitution of the United States, not a person, including the president of the United States.
“The recent firings of key National Security Council officials, as well as leadership figures from the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command, mark a consequential moment in U.S. governance, one that must be examined through the lens of strategic realignment and its potential security consequences,” warned geopolitical analyst Irina Tsukerman, president of political threat assessment firm Scarab Rising.
“President Trump’s justification, removing individuals for lacking the “right loyalties” raises serious questions, particularly when loyalty appears to be defined less by allegiance to the U.S. Constitution than by alignment with the president’s personal or political agenda,” Tsukerman told The National Interest.
What Agency Is Next on the Chopping Block?
At least eight individuals in key security roles had been fired. Among those were Brian Walsh, senior director of intelligence; Thomas Boodry, senior director of legislative affairs; and David Feith, senior director of technology and national security.
The firings also come just two weeks after several officials who have shown loyalty to Trump faced no punishment for inadvertently sharing what was likely classified details about a pending strike on Houthi positions in Yemen on the Signal messaging app.
Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently added to a group chat started by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
During last year’s campaign, Waltz mistakenly saved Goldberg’s number, which belonged to former Trump spokesperson Brian Hughes. While Trump reportedly considered firing Waltz, the president was more bothered by Waltz’s having Goldberg’s contact information than by the serious mix-up that could have compromised U.S. military operational security.
“Astonishingly, President Trump would fire the nonpartisan, experienced leader of the NSA while still failing to hold any member of his team accountable for leaking classified information on a commercial messaging app, even as he takes staffing direction on national security from a discredited conspiracy theorist in the Oval Office,” wrote Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia).
“[The firings] come on the heels of the so-called “Signal Leak” scandal, which exposed vulnerabilities in secure communications and intensified anxieties within the intelligence community (IC),” added Tsukerman.
“Many fear the erosion of professionalism, objectivity, and interagency coordination that has traditionally anchored American intelligence efforts.”
Any shift in loyalty metrics, especially regarding officials charged with protecting the United States, carries implications beyond bureaucratic reshuffling.
“When high-level intelligence and cyber leadership are purged, and replacements lack vetting or relevant national security experience, the continuity and effectiveness of U.S. threat detection and deterrence are compromised,” Tsukerman continued.
“In this new order, experience is expendable, but retweets are résumé builders. It is not simply that seasoned professionals are being replaced; institutional knowledge and inter-agency trust are being gutted when the U.S. faces increasingly complex and hybrid threats.”
These Agency Firings Are a Looming National Security Threat
These firings spotlighted Laura Loomer’s influence in the White House, and the president has acknowledged that she has almost unprecedented access to him. Not even tech billionaire Elon Musk, named to head the “Department of Government Efficiency” or DOGE, has Trump’s ear like Loomer.
“She makes recommendations on things and people, and sometimes I listen to those recommendations, like I do with everybody. I listen to everybody, and then I decide,” Trump admitted.
“She always has something to say, usually very constructive… she recommended some people for jobs.”
It appears that Trump took her suggestion of the officials’ disloyalty to heart without seeking additional insight on the matter.
“These firings, of all such firings thus far in this administration, should provoke the most worry,” explained Dr. Matthew J. Schmidt, National Security and Political Science associate professor at the University of New Haven.
“Solid sourcing suggests the President was persuaded to let the core of his NSC staff go on the recommendation of a notorious conspiracy theorist, Laura Loomer, who has zero experience in national security and zero evidence of anyone’s disloyalty to the country.”
Loomer has previously promoted discredited conspiracy theories that 9/11 was an inside job, and she has expressed anti-Muslim rhetoric.
Schmidt told The National Interest that Loomer’s influence could be compared to that of Grigori Rasputin, the Russian mystic and faith healer who gained the friendship of Tsar Nicholas II and Empress Consort Alexandra Feodorovna. Loomer acknowledged on Sunday that her goal is to work in the administration.
“This is like Rasputin counseling the Tsar based on an omen in the stars,” Schmidt said. “It’s scary voodoo stuff to let someone like Loomer have this kind of power over a sitting president. That should terrify us, no matter what we think of the people getting fired.”
Trump has repeatedly said he takes advisor recommendations seriously. Yet, he failed to punish anyone after the Signal chat scandal, even as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle called for removing either Waltz or Hegseth.
Instead, Loomer’s recommendations to gut the NSC and remove the head of the NSA were the ones taken to heart.
“When those who reject foundational national narratives and embrace destabilizing rhetoric are elevated to advisory roles or granted proximity to policy-shaping circles, it signals a deeper problem: the politicization of national security at the expense of credibility, cohesion, and strategic foresight. When conspiracy becomes a credential, security becomes a suggestion,” said Tsukerman.
“This situation reflects a broader pattern of power consolidation and ideological filtering within the security apparatus.”
Tsukerman further warned that the consequence is not merely administrative disruption but a weakening of the U.S. defensive posture.
“If loyalty is no longer to the rule of law but to the preferences of the executive, then what we face is not reform, but a slow unraveling of democratic guardrails that once ensured strategic continuity and institutional resilience,” Tsukerman continued.
“However, this isn’t merely dysfunction, it’s an autopsy in real time of institutional memory. The pattern reflects a deliberate centralization of control that sidelines professionals in favor of loyalists, placing long-term national security planning at risk. When national security becomes a revolving door of echo chambers, don’t be surprised when no one’s left to hear the alarms.”
About the Author: Peter Suciu
Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: [email protected].
Image: Shutterstock/ Babooo0.