this post was submitted on 10 May 2025
463 points (99.8% liked)

politics

23472 readers
3977 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Donald Trump has attended only 12 intelligence briefings in his first 100+ days of his second term, a steep decline from his already infrequent briefing schedule during his first presidency, POLITICO reports.

He began 2025 with just two in-person updates monthly, shifting to weekly in April.

Critics, including Sen. Mark Warner, say Trump’s disengagement endangers national security, as he also avoids reading detailed briefing materials.

His national security team is in turmoil, and recent cuts to CIA DEI programs have sparked fears of institutional regression and increased vulnerability to global threats.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 125 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Unironically probably for the best, anything top secret he would learn in those meetings would be in the hands of his autocratic handlers before the meeting was concluded.

[–] SippyCup@feddit.nl 33 points 3 days ago

He's too demented to understand them anyway. He wouldn't care even if he could.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago

That's optimistic. The handlers are probably still at (or even orchestrating) the briefings.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Honestly, at this point I'd be willing to bet that those officials who actually still give half a shit about national security don't give Trump anything that isn't essentially public information already. Or at the very least, largely harmless if it does become public. It's not like Trump would know or care about the difference.

Remember that multiple sources have said that during his first term, the Presidential Daily Briefings were largely little more than fluff pieces with pretty pictures, easy to understand words, and random references to him just to keep his attention, much like trying to keep a 3 year old occupied with a coloring book and a handful of crayons.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago

he was like this his first term too.

[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Not sure, he is probably getting his intelligence from Russia at this point

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago

his krasnov: briefing for the week, is ignore all other intelligence briefing from the us, and allies, and also shout "my putins talking points" once a while to make noise and distract the news.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Which really runs against the "Everything Trump does is actually Russia!" line that gets posted around here incessantly. There's nothing Putin would want more than to have access to those briefings, but his useful idiot is too much of an idiot to be useful here. Trump is on Putin's side, sure, but most of what he does, especially in this term, is the result of home-grown American authoritarianism, not orders from Russia.

[–] ysjet@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Why would Putin need Trump to pass that sort of thing along anymore? That's literally Tulsi Gabbard's job, passing along info the Putin.

She was literally a known Russian spy even before the got confirmed.

Would you trust Trump to accuratly repeat what he heard?