This can get interesting in a screwy conspiracy fiction on How to Coup.
Don’t forget: if the president or other politician does not know about it in the first place, then he can’t ask about it.
I remember reading that Eisenhower liked being briefed about classified CIA operations, enjoying the cloak-and-dagger stories, but was careful not to ask for the names of any of the agents, sources or other people involved.
This thread may interest you: How the CIA has briefed candidates and Presidents over the years - Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share (MPSIMS) - Straight Dope Message Board
Sure he can. He’d start by saying “Give me a list of all secret programs we’re currently undertaking”, and then ask follow-up questions from there.
People would rather be fired or quit than give him anything he shouldn’t know about. He’s incompetent and thinks nothing of provoking war. So he can ask, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to get it. He behaves like a child, so he has to be treated like one.
To be clear, the “he” in my post didn’t refer to Donald J. Trump specifically, but to the President in general. Specifics to the situation of Donald J. Trump probably don’t belong in this forum.
I think the vast amount of people working in the Executive Branch are not willing to do this.
speculation is all fine and all, but the reality is that the President has access to and is given briefings on all the significant national security assets and capabilities of the the US:
Which only indicates our trust was well-placed.
There’s a loophole there that’s big enough to drive a mega-mining machine through.
How does the president know if there are 10 programs he doesn’t know about, or 500?
If they were fired or quit,they’d be replaced by people who would comply with the order.
Not answering a question that the president didn’t ask is one thing.
Lying to the president is another.
He could also go at it from a budgetary standpoint. How much total money the CIA, say, gets budgeted is a matter of public record. So the President could call the director of the CIA into his office and ask for a breakdown of that. And if there are compartmentalized programs within the CIA that the director doesn’t have full knowledge of, the President could ask who’s in charge of those programs, call them into his office, and repeat. Then do the same thing for the NSA, the DOD, and any other governmental agency that does secret stuff.
How much is budgeted for any one intelligence agency is not public, but your point still stands. The appropriate staff in the Office or Management and Budget, who work directly for the President, are fully witting of all aspects of the intelligence budgets. If there is an Area 53, OMB knows about it. This does not mean that OMB knows the identity of our moles in foreign governments.
Nicely put, but :dubious:.
Every department in any corporation in the the world knows how to move around budgetary allocations.
I don’t think you understand the role of OMB in treasury warrants, apportionment, and budget execution.
The budget guys might not know what every project does, but they’d have to at least know of their existence. Even if all they know is that the project code-named Project Thor consumes 10 billion dollars per year, that’s enough that the President would be able to ask one of the recipients of that money “Just what is Project Thor?”.
I’ve never worked for the President, so I can’t answer the question specifically. But I have worked for some very senior people at DoD.
The only times I’ve seen people balk at giving classified information to senior leaders who have a need to know, is in the area of revealing who or what the source was. The ‘what’ is sometimes important, because it drives to how reliable the information may be. The ‘who’, unless one had personal knowledge of who that is, isn’t important but could be harmful to those involved.
[And for the millionth time - having access to any types of classified material, at least in the U. S requires a need to know.]
Isn’t the whole point, however, that the POTUS can say he has a need to know and the person he is asking can’t respond by saying no, you don’t need to know?
It’s the whole point of this discussion, yes. But in all of these threads (this one included) someone makes a comment that "A friend of mine had a clearance with “a need to know” authority. But need to know is always a competent and isn’t a separate issue.
Doubtless true. /not snark, although it sounds snark-esque 