The International Legal Studies Program welcomed attorney Bruce MacKay, a 45-year veteran of the United States Intelligence Community, for a conversation on the growing politicization of intelligence. MacKay previously served on active duty under what was the U.S. Army’s predecessor to the Defense Clandestine Service and later with the Defense Intelligence Agency, where he conducted intelligence collection operations on three continents and advised senior leadership on legal and operational matters. He spent 15 years as a professor between the Marine Corps University and the National Intelligence University. MacKay discussed the political history of national intelligence in the United States, how that history relates to current events, and the risks that politicization poses to intelligence institutions.
During World War II, the United States relied on a handful of intelligence organizations—namely the Army, Navy, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and State Department—with intelligence coordination ultimately falling to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. This early arrangement marked the first stage of intelligence politicization, MacKay explained. Over time, additional intelligence organizations were established, including the Defense Intelligence Agency, where MacKay spent 25 years of his career as general counsel, senior policy officer, and director of operations.
MacKay described a major structural shift in intelligence after the September 11 attacks. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 replaced the Director of Central Intelligence with the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), creating a new office intended to coordinate the growing intelligence community. He explained that the first DNI was chosen from the State Department, rather than the CIA or the Department of Defense, in part to avoid political perceptions that the intelligence community was dominated by either organization. He warned that today, the politicization of intelligence is facing troubling escalation.
“We have long had issues with politicization and intelligence,” MacKay said. “We’re in an era we’ve never been in before, where heads of intelligence organizations get fired because the primary customer doesn’t like what they’ve been told. That is unprecedented, and it is horrifically dangerous.”
He addressed how political transitions affect intelligence, particularly when a new presidential administration enters office, noting that intelligence collection priorities ultimately flow from the president’s national intelligence objectives. MacKay explained that, in order to maintain a level of continuity across administrations, intelligence professionals rely on the National Intelligence Priorities Framework, which sets long-term priorities that remain consistent across political leadership while being updated to reflect the president’s objectives and emerging threats.
Intelligence cooperation with foreign partners can also be affected by political relationships, as diplomatic tensions can influence how freely information is exchanged. MacKay noted that foreign partners may limit the information they provide if they become frustrated with U.S. policies or perceive that shared intelligence is being used in ways they cannot support.
“Historically, the intelligence sharing agreements have been pretty much apolitical,” he said. “Our current administration has a different approach to diplomacy. That approach has not been well received in many countries around the world.” He added, “What’s going to happen with the new administration? Much will depend on how much damage is done by the current one and how long it takes to rebuild trust.”
According to MacKay, “every president since the creation of the intelligence community, without exception, has used the intelligence community for, at best, questionable purposes, and in some cases, improper purposes.” He pointed to several historical examples, including the use of federal intelligence resources to monitor domestic political opponents during World War II under President Roosevelt and the Watergate scandal under President Nixon.
In closing, MacKay reminded students that their decisions as public servants will have impacts across the country. Whether or not they enter the field in national security, the authority granted by their future roles will carry a moral obligation, he said.
“You will be in public service because the license your jurisdiction gives you will allow you to shape society,” he said. “Whether it’s through transactional work, whether it’s through conventional public service work, or whether it’s via pro bono activities, you are going to be a voice in whatever community you end up in.”
“Law has always been not only a tool of the powerful but a conscience for society. Use your conscience to make your society better, wherever you end up and whatever form of practice you are in, because you will have a role unlike any other. You will have privileges unlike anyone else. Use them to make your communities, and by extension, our nation, a better place.”