So Trump seems to have attracted some criticism for forgoing most of the daily security briefings that presidents usually get. I’m no expert on these matters, but it seems to me that Trump’s approach makes sense.
How much of significance changes in a typical day? I would have to imagine that that’s very little. ISTM a waste of time to have a president listen to daily briefings that are mostly more of the same old same old. If anything major does happen that requires presidential attention then people whose job it is to focus on such things can bring it to his attention.
What am I missing here?
[FWIW, here’s Slate on the subject - critical of Trump but unconvincing to me.]
I think it’s this plus all the other stuff regarding intel and security – he’s shown a consistent disregard for our intelligence gathering professionals, insisting that because he’s “smart” (and similar) he doesn’t need daily briefings. If he had a better explanation for skipping most of the briefs, and he hadn’t consistently dismissed various intelligence reports in the past, then this criticism probably wouldn’t be as significant.
What the orange buffoon elect is missing is a sense of curiosity, a desire to be informed instead of wallowing in ignorance, and the commitment to do the job for which he was elected (arguably as much to his own surprise as anyone else’s).
I would think that (a) quite a bit can change from day to day when speaking globally and (b) part of the idea is that the president decides when something is important rather than purely relying on others to let him know when something important comes up. And that the president is already largely up to speed when something DOES happen rather than having to get him up to speed on the last three weeks’ events in some foreign nation when the shooting starts.
This clearly has much more to do with Trump’s inability to pay attention (link) than it does with the bizarre assertion that nothing new tends to happen in the world during the course of a week.
What specifically is unconvincing - that the briefs aren’t repetitive, that Trump is making a mistake by skipping 6 out of 7, or something else?
I don’t understand how anyone who reads the news with any frequency could say that anything more than once a week is repetitive. A lot happens in the world every day. Do you think the situation in Aleppo is the same today as it was last week?
And speaking as someone who once worked with (but not for) various intel agencies, some things change little, some change a lot, and even a briefing that says “all is right with the world” tells you something.
What does “forgoing most of the daily security briefings” mean? Does that mean not meeting with the briefers in person and listening to them? If so, Obama also skipped most of the daily security briefings as President. Reagan, apparently, has attended exactly one such briefing as President-elect.
The question is whether the differences are enough such that the POTUS needs a daily brief so that he can personally be on top of these changes. I don’t see it.
But the point is that he can rely on his people to tell him if something important changed a lot, and if they don’t then he can assume nothing major is changed.
"Obama receiving an in-person briefing on the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) 43.8 percent of his time in office. (The percentage dropped from a high of 48.8 percent in 2010 to 38.2 percent through May of 2012.) "
My post: “Does that mean not meeting with the briefers in person and listening to them? If so, Obama also skipped most of the daily security briefings as President.”
I do not stand corrected. If you say he didn’t “skip” because they were not scheduled - then it is probably the same with Trump. Those meetings are not scheduled.
From further reading, Reagan apparently was briefed in person two-three times during his Presidency.
Has anybody shown that the daily briefings really are the same? It seems unlikely to me that the various intelligence agencies write a report every day that just repeats things they’ve already said. It seems more likely to me that the daily briefings would be the equivalent of a nightly news broadcast; designed to advise the President of new information.
No, I think your statement was wrong. Obama wasn’t skipping his daily security briefings if he was receiving them in a written report rather than in person.
“Bill Clinton read it ahead of time, but early in his career he canceled the briefing when he believed that the PDB taught him nothing new and that he had more important budgetary matters to handle.”
For everyone who hasn’t read the Slate article linked in the OP, it’s worthwhile. It discusses the different formats the security briefing can take, how it’s customized for the sitting president, and how different they might be (since it’s classified, we don’t really know for sure).
Okrahoma, what makes you pretty sure that Trump is receiving and reading the daily briefings?
I am pretty sure it is submitted to his staff and placed on his desk. I didn’t say he’s “reading” them - of that I have no idea. But I am pretty sure he’s “receiving” them.
What makes sure that other Presidents read every PDB that they received?
OK, what makes you pretty sure he is receiving the documents? Can you point to any evidence other than you want to believe it? This Reuters article says he is receiving one briefing a week and refers to the briefing as a document, which suggests Trump receives the document once a week.