National Security

Could furloughs put the nation's secrets at risk?

folder stamped 'top secret'

The head of U.S. spy agencies told lawmakers Oct. 2 that roughly 70 percent of civilians in the intelligence community are on furlough, and their absence presents a danger to national security and increases the possibility that some could end up working for the enemy.

"I've been in the intelligence business for about 50 years. I've never seen anything like this," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Oct. 2. "This affects our global capability to support the military, to support diplomacy and foreign policy matters. The danger here is that this will accumulate over time. The damage will be insidious, so each day that goes by the jeopardy increases."

Clapper said that if the shutdown continues, some furloughed employees may need to be called back in. He also suggested that damage to morale and monetary concerns could be enough to push employees to seek work with potential adversaries, calling the shutdown "a dreamland for foreign intelligence to recruit, especially as our employees, already subject to furloughs driven by sequestration, will have even greater financial challenges."

For now, the various agencies that comprise the intelligence community, including the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, are operating at reduced capacity.

Not everyone agrees that the shutdown poses a dire threat to national security. Gary Schmitt, resident scholar and co-director of the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said Clapper's shutdown rhetoric is overblown and incendiary.

"At this point Clapper is wildly overstating the impact on the intelligence community," Schmitt said. "It's reckless to say that furloughed employees are now good targets for other intelligence agencies to turn them into assets for other governments. If I was an employee of the intelligence community, I'd be pretty angry hearing that suggestion that so many people who have clearances are so susceptible to being turned for a dollar."

"The intelligence community's ability to identify threats and provide information for a broad set of national security decisions will be diminished for the duration," Shawn Turner, a spokesman for Clapper, said in a statement. "The immediate and significant reduction in employees on the job means that we will assume greater risk and our ability to support emerging intelligence requirements will be curtailed."

According to Defense Department shutdown plans, operations related to command, control, computers, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance necessary for national security are considered excepted activities and therefore not subject to furlough. Also exempt are activities required to operate, maintain, assess and disseminate the collection of intelligence required for military operations.

The shutdown was enough to prompt Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to deem the furloughs crippling to the intelligence community.

"Our shutdown is the biggest gift we could possibly give our enemies," she said in a speech on the Senate floor, according to The Hill.

While the shutdown is temporary and, if extended, could pose problems, there are other serious issues to be concerned about, Schmitt said.

"The idea that we'd cut 70 percent of employees at NSA who keep track of communications that we depend on for counterintelligence purposes strikes me as either the administration doesn't take seriously what essential means, or they're just vastly overstating what in fact is happening," he said. "At some point, the shutdown will end. The real issue is what the sequester will do to the intelligence community, since the budget takes about 50 percent of those cuts out of the defense budget and intelligence comes under that. The issue shouldn’t be the shutdown; it should be how the president and Congress are going to continue with these significant cuts in national security."

About the Author

Amber Corrin is a former staff writer for FCW and Defense Systems.

Who's Fed 100-worthy?

Nominations are now open for the 2015 Federal 100 awards. Get the details and submit your picks!

Featured

Reader comments

Wed, Oct 23, 2013

If anything, I think we had fewer chances of secrets getting out. One thing's certain, as a population our privacy was more than likely less invaded during the furlough!

Fri, Oct 4, 2013 Richard

Economics does play a part in people’s decision making, although it seems unlikely that someone would become an enemy agent for missing a paycheck or two. Most Federal employees feel they are serving their country and are willing to take less pay and a maddening bureaucracy for a more stable job. Under the current situation, good folks may decide that if the country does not want their service (try living in a very conservative state where if you are not wearing a uniform, you viewed as over-paid and lazy) and is unwilling to provide a stable job, they may as well work for some private company. They know that American business only pays lip service to the importance of their employees, but the pay is generally better than Federal service.

Fri, Oct 4, 2013 Chuck the Wise

Yeah. Sure. Someone's going to turn and risk life in prison because the government furlpoughs them. What a stupid notion.

Thu, Oct 3, 2013 ss DC

GOOD ARTICLE!

Thu, Oct 3, 2013

As a long-term federal employee I am insulted by this comment that other federal employees are ripe for being turned into double agents due to morale and monetary concerns. This was not even talked about as an issue in the 1990s which lasted 20 days. If he thinks so little of his federal employees, than perhaps we have a problem with the hiring process. This is a character issue, where interviews which determine appreciation for being a US citizen should be assessed. A federal worker is not a corporate worker, they do not answer to the company. Most of them are very loyal to this country and previously served in the military. If this sentiment is being expressed currently, I would hope that their clearance should be reassessed. Perhaps the problem is the rush to trust new hires or promote too rapidly the inexperienced. Access to more sensitive information should be a gradual process not sudden. You should prove yourself, not just by words but by deeds.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above