Jesús Daniel Romero, Co-Founder and Senior Fellow of the Miami Strategic Intelligence Institute for FinGurú
A republic of laws, not of secrets
The Founders did not intend for our Republic to operate in secret. While certain information must remain classified to protect national security, the long-term legitimacy of public institutions depends on the ability of citizens to review, question, and, when necessary, challenge the actions of their leaders.
When intelligence assessments become part of political discourse, as happened after the 2016 elections and the subsequent narrative of "collusion with Russia," they deserve rigorous scrutiny. Whether those assessments were fair, erroneous, or politicized is precisely what a legal declassification process allows the public to assess for itself. Recent publications, including the declassification of internal FBI notes, memoranda from the intelligence community, and reports related to the Steele dossier (Justice Department Inspector General, 2019) and the FISA applications, underscore the importance of transparency when partisan narratives drive national inquiries.
Legal authority and institutional oversight
Under Executive Order 13526 and Title 50 of the U.S. Code, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) has the authority to declassify information under specific conditions, as long as national security concerns are adequately addressed. Reportedly, materials published by the DNI Office underwent interagency review and redaction, in accordance with these procedures. At the time of writing this document, there is no evidence that these actions violated classification law or compromised ongoing operations.
From a constitutional perspective, this constitutes a function of legal oversight and not an extraordinary event. The intelligence community is not exempt from scrutiny, and the agencies operating within it are ultimately accountable to elected civilian leaders and, by extension, to the public they serve.
Democratic governance requires transparency
One of the fundamental principles of democratic governance is that the public must have access to the facts necessary to make informed decisions. This includes the right to review how executive branch agencies conduct investigations, manage threats of foreign interference, and develop assessments that influence national strategy.
When internal disagreements arise within the intelligence community, especially on matters as significant as a presidential election, it is appropriate to examine such differences, provided it does not expose sensitive sources or methods.
Declassification, in this sense, is not a threat to intelligence work. It is a check against potential abuse of power. Transparency, when legally applied, reinforces the credibility of national institutions.
Declassification is not a coup d'état; it is a lapse
A significant part of the controversy surrounding these revelations is not due to the content of the documents but to the reactions generated. Some officials have labeled the act of declassification itself as a political maneuver. However, in reality, making these documents public—when done through legal and secure channels—reinforces the fundamental principle that no government agency should operate outside the bounds of accountability.
The recent declassification of intelligence by Director Gabbard (Director of National Intelligence) related to the origins and conduct of the Russia investigation was done following proper procedures. These records, which shed light on internal dissent surrounding the Steele dossier (Justice Department Inspector General, 2019), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, and the FBI’s "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation, were reviewed and redacted when necessary to protect sources and methods. Their disclosure does not constitute misconduct. It is how a legitimate constitutional process addresses allegations of institutional misconduct through established legal mechanisms and procedural review.
Public trust in intelligence
Public trust in intelligence requires more than internal consensus; it demands transparency. It necessitates public accountability. The declassification of internal documents, especially those involving controversial findings or assessments, is a mechanism through which the public can evaluate whether intelligence was politicized,
distorted, or accurately presented. This process is healthy for a democratic society and necessary to preserve the credibility of federal institutions.
The selective use of classification, particularly when used to suppress debate or insulate senior officials from criticism, undermines the long-term trust necessary between the intelligence community and the citizenry. When transparency is balanced with operational security, it can reaffirm institutional integrity.
The historical instrumentalization of intelligence
Intelligence has been politically instrumentalized since its inception. From the beginnings of the Office of Strategic Services and CIA interventions during the Cold War, to internal surveillance programs like COINTELPRO, to the investigations of the Rockefeller Commission and the Church Committee of the U.S. Senate in 1975-76, the intelligence infrastructure has been improperly used for political purposes. The Church Committee’s final report concluded that, in many instances, intelligence agencies did not serve national security but the personal or political objectives of executive leaders. These abuses spurred the creation of a permanent oversight system in Congress, the Hughes-Ryan Amendment, and the establishment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
More recent revelations, such as the improper use of FISA procedures in the "Crossfire Hurricane" case, illustrate that vulnerability to political misuse persists, especially when intelligence is shielded from public accountability. Secrecy is necessary to protect national interests, but in the absence of legal transparency, it becomes a tool of narrative control rather than a safeguard of the republic.
The importance of process, not partisanship
The public discourse surrounding these recent revelations has been politically charged. This is regrettable. The question of whether intelligence officials acted within proper legal and ethical bounds should not be reduced to campaign rhetoric or factional accusation.
These are matters of institutional conduct and constitutional accountability.
The American people have the right to examine how their government operated during a controversial period in recent history. Responsible declassification, conducted under proper legal authority and with adequate national security safeguards, allows for such examination.
This is not a partisan trial. It is a recognition that transparency and accountability are fundamental to representative government. The process of disclosing historical intelligence records, when conducted within the legal framework, can enhance public understanding and strengthen the rule of law.
Conclusion
Despite—or even because of—the political shock surrounding these revelations, it remains healthy for a constitutional republic to allow public examination of government records, regardless of their political implications. Americans have the right and expectation to trust in the integrity of their institutions. When that trust erodes, gradually or through negligence, it threatens the foundations of democratic governance.
The release of declassified materials related to the Russia investigation, including the Steele dossier (Justice Department Inspector General, 2019), FISA surveillance requests, and the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" operation (Durham, 2023), illustrates the dangers of relying on politicized intelligence. These revelations will always have political consequences. This is inevitable in a system where accountability is exercised through elected authority. But the fact that intelligence records may be politically sensitive does not justify their indefinite concealment. Blocking such documents only serves to undermine legitimate oversight and reinforce public doubt in the absence of transparency. Responsible declassification, conducted under legitimate authority and with proper safeguards, does not constitute a disruption of government. It is a reaffirmation that the public has the right to examine government actions and that institutional legitimacy depends on ongoing public trust.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dAixOqBHqE&ab_channel=TheDailySignal
References
National Archives. (n.d.). Executive Order 13526: Classified National Security Information.
https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html
Busby, J., & Slick, S. (2018, May 29). Glasnost for U.S. Intelligence: Will Transparency Lead to Increased Public Trust? Lawfare.
Brennan Center for Justice. (n.d.). Conclusions of the Church Committee Report and Oversight Reforms.
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Church_Committee_Report.pdf
Levin Center at Wayne Law. (2021). Portraits in Oversight: Frank Church and the Church Committee.
https://www.levin-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/9-Portraits-in-Oversight- Frank-Church-and-the-Church-Committee-Levin-Center-at-Wayne-Law-1.pdf
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. (2024). Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans [PDF].
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sites-default-files-94755-ii.pdf
Chicago Council on Global Affairs. (2018). Public Attitudes on U.S. Intelligence.https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/research/public-opinion-survey/glasnost-us-intelligence-will-transparency-lead-increased-public-trust
Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. (2019). Review of Four Applications
FISA and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf
Durham, J. H. (2023). Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Derived from the 2016 Presidential Campaigns. U.S. Department of Justice.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf
U.S. Government Publishing Office. (n.d.). 50 U.S.C. § 3024 –Responsibilities and Authorities of the Director of National Intelligence.
https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/50/3024
U.S. Government Publishing Office (n.d.). The Hughes–Ryan Amendment.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-INTELLIGENCE/html/int022.html
PBS. (n.d.). A History of Huey P. Newton – Actions – COINTELPRO.
https://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_cointelpro.html
U.S. Senate. (n.d.). Senate Select Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities ("Church Committee").
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/investigations/church-committee.htm
American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). Senate Report on Torture Under FOIA.
https://www.aclu.org/cases/senate-torture-report-foia
Jesus Daniel Romero is a Retired U.S. Naval Intelligence Commander, Co-Founder, and Senior Fellow at the Miami Strategic Intelligence Institute.
Author of the Amazon bestseller "The Final Flight: The Queen of Air" and currently writing a trilogy of books on transnational crime (drug trafficking, terrorism, narco-states, etc.) in Latin America.
He is a columnist for Diario Las Américas in Miami, Florida, and a permanent consultant for major state media on issues of his expertise.
Comments