MxM News

Quick Hit:

CNN has raised alarms about potential risks to national security if President Donald Trump moves forward with plans to reduce staffing in intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA. The report suggests that disgruntled employees could be tempted to sell state secrets if they are fired, highlighting the delicate balance between maintaining national security and trimming government bureaucracy.

Key Details:

• CNN’s report warns that mass firings at the CIA could make dismissed employees prime targets for foreign intelligence recruitment.
• The article relies heavily on anonymous sources, raising concerns about credibility and journalistic standards.
• Critics argue that if employees are willing to sell secrets out of resentment, they shouldn’t be trusted with sensitive information in the first place.

Diving Deeper:

CNN’s recent article, “How Trump’s Government-Cutting Moves Risk Exposing the CIA’s Secrets,” suggests that reducing the workforce at the CIA could have severe national security implications. According to the report, current and former intelligence officials are concerned that dismissed employees may become vulnerable to recruitment by foreign adversaries such as China or Russia. The article implies that financially stressed or bitter former employees could sell classified information to the highest bidder, potentially jeopardizing U.S. intelligence operations.

The report, written by Katie Bo Lillis, Phil Mattingly, Natasha Bertrand, and Zachary Cohen, relies heavily on unnamed sources, citing “current and former US officials familiar with internal deliberations.” Critics have pointed out that the extensive use of anonymous sourcing raises questions about the report’s reliability and objectivity. In fact, CNN uses unnamed sources 18 times throughout the article, only once attributing a quote to a named individual, Joseph Gioeli of the Fiscal Service.

This narrative raises an uncomfortable question: If intelligence personnel are indeed likely to betray their country over job loss, why are they entrusted with national secrets in the first place? Beth Brelje, writing for The Federalist, argues that if employees have such weak loyalty, they should be removed from sensitive positions immediately. “Those with too little integrity to exit with grace should not be employed in jobs with access to sensitive information,” Brelje writes, highlighting the paradox in CNN’s portrayal of these individuals as both valuable assets and potential security threats.

Critics also suggest that CNN’s coverage reflects a broader media agenda to undermine Trump’s efforts to reform government agencies. By framing standard budget cuts and workforce reductions as national security risks, the narrative portrays Trump’s cost-cutting measures as reckless rather than fiscally responsible. This perspective aligns with concerns that the media is attempting to protect entrenched bureaucracies that have historically served as sources for politically charged leaks.

The implications of this report are significant. If CNN’s warnings are accurate, then the integrity and loyalty of the nation’s intelligence community must be questioned. On the other hand, if the article is merely speculative propaganda, it raises concerns about the media’s role in shaping public perception with anonymous claims and vague threats. As President Trump continues to implement government reforms, the question remains: Who truly poses the greater risk to national security — the whistleblowers or the bureaucrats they expose?

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

This negative perception of Canada’s regulatory environment is hardly a surprise, given Ottawa’s policies over the last decade.

During last night’s Liberal leadership debate, there was a lot of talk about Donald Trump. But whatever your views on President Trump, one thing is certain—he’s revitalized his country’s energy sector. Through a set of executive orders, Trump instructed agency heads to identify “actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy source” and “exercise any lawful emergency authorities available” to facilitate energy production and transportation. In other words, let’s become an energy superpower.

Clearly, to avoid falling further behind, Canada must swiftly end policies that unduly restrict oil and gas production and discourage investment. Change can’t come soon enough.

Before Trump’s inauguration, red tape was already hindering Canada’s oil and gas sector, which was less attractive for investment compared to the United States. According to a survey conducted in 2023, , 68 per cent of oil and gas investors said uncertainty about environmental regulations deterred investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector compared to 41 per cent in the U.S. Similarly, 54 per cent said Canada’s regulatory duplication and inconsistencies deterred investment compared to only 34 per cent for the U.S. And 55 per cent of respondents said that uncertainty regarding the enforcement of existing regulations in Canada deterred investment compared to only 37 per cent of respondents for the U.S.

This negative perception of Canada’s regulatory environment is hardly a surprise, given Ottawa’s policies over the last decade. For example, one year after taking office, in 2016 the Trudeau government cancelled the previously approved $7.9 billion Northern Gateway pipeline, which was designed to transport crude oil from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast, expanding Canada’s access to Asian markets.

In 2017, Prime Minister Trudeau undermined the long-term confidence in the sector by vowing to “phase out” fossil fuels in Canada.

In 2019, the Trudeau government passed Bill C-69, introducing subjective criteria including the “gender implications” of energy investment into the evaluation process of major energy projects, causing massive uncertainty around the development of new projects.

Also that year, the government enacted Bill C-48, which bans large oil tankers from B.C.’s northern coast, limiting Canadian exports to Asia.

In 2023, the Trudeau government announced plans to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the oil and gas sector at 35 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030—an arbitrary measure considering GHG emissions from other sectors in the economy were left untouched. According to a recent report, to comply with the cap, Canadian firms must severely curtail oil and gas production. As one might expect, these policies come at a cost. Over the last decade, investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector has collapsed by 56 per cent, from $84.0 billion in 2014 to $37.2 billion in 2023 (inflation adjusted). Less investment means less funding for new energy projects, technologies and infrastructure, and fewer job opportunities and economic opportunities for Canadians nationwide.

The energy gap between the U.S. and Canada is set to grow wider during President Trump’s second term. While Trump wants to attract investment to the American oil and gas industry by streamlining processes and cutting costs, Canada is driving investment away with costly and often arbitrary measures. If Ottawa continues on its current path, Canada’s leading industry—and its largest source of exports—will lose more ground to the U.S. When Parliament reconvenes, policymakers must move quickly to eliminate harmful policies hindering our energy sector.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute