A collection of former intelligence officials calling themselves The Steady State is outraged—outraged that the CIA is undergoing reforms that might actually make it more effective, accountable, and aligned with U.S. national security priorities rather than the bureaucratic fiefdom it has become. In a letter dripping with condescension and institutional self-preservation, this group of supposedly 200 former national security officials warns of a so-called “deferred retirement” initiative that they claim will systematically eliminate institutional expertise and threaten America’s ability to confront foreign adversaries.
But let’s pause and scrutinize this claim. Who exactly are these 200 members? Where’s the transparency? Without a verifiable list, it is entirely reasonable to question whether this number is inflated—a tactic to feign broad support and lend unwarranted credibility to their objections. If these former officials are so concerned about the future of the intelligence community, why are they hiding behind an anonymous letter rather than standing by their words?
Let’s cut through the bureaucratic fog. What they’re really upset about is that their grip on the agency—their legacy of dysfunction, self-serving political activism, and status quo groupthink—is being dismantled. They aren’t protecting national security; they’re protecting themselves.
For years, the intelligence community has functioned as an unaccountable entity, answering more to its own entrenched leadership than to the elected government it supposedly serves. The same intelligence bureaucracy that has repeatedly failed to anticipate major global shifts now wants to lecture the American people about competency. These are the same officials who have consistently prioritized internal power struggles over external threats, more concerned with maintaining their own influence than ensuring the agency operates at peak effectiveness.
The letter clutches its pearls over the idea that national security professionals should be “responsive to the Administration’s national security priorities.” That is not a scandal—that is how a functioning democracy works. Intelligence agencies are not supposed to be self-governing entities with their own foreign policies. Their job is to provide intelligence to support the elected leadership of the United States, not to act as an unelected fourth branch of government. But for years, the entrenched careerists have preferred to see themselves as independent operators, picking and choosing which policies to support based on their own institutional preferences.
The reality is, the CIA and broader intelligence community have been overdue for an overhaul. There is no inherent virtue in “institutional expertise” when that expertise has been wrong more often than right. If an intelligence officer’s value is tied solely to their tenure rather than their ability to produce accurate, actionable intelligence, then their retirement isn’t a loss—it’s an improvement. There is nothing sacred about longevity when it comes at the cost of effectiveness. The agency doesn’t need a priesthood of careerists—it needs professionals who understand that their role is to serve America’s security, not their own power structures.
This letter is a tantrum from former officials who resent losing their grip on an agency that, for too long, has been insulated from real accountability. Their warnings about a “mass exodus” of experienced personnel should be taken for what they are—a desperate attempt to protect a comfortable, status quo bureaucracy that has failed to deliver results. The CIA should not be a retirement home for lifers whose main qualification is that they’ve been there the longest. It should be an agile, responsive intelligence agency that serves the mission, not itself.
If reforms are driving out officers who believe they are above the elected government they serve, then the reforms are long overdue. If prioritizing competence, effectiveness, and mission-focus over longevity makes some in the “Steady State” uncomfortable, they are free to join the “Retired State” instead. America’s national security deserves better than institutional stagnation disguised as expertise.