My Theory: The Silence of American Intelligence Agencies on Trump and UAPs
I’ve been pondering a thought: the reason American intelligence agencies haven’t moved against Trump may stem from their desire to preserve the status quo regarding Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP).
Consider this a speculative take, informed by my own political views on Trump, the Republican Party, and the current landscape in the United States.
This reflection came to me after encountering the question: “Why have U.S. intelligence agencies allowed Trump to rise to power, not just once, but twice?”
Let’s think about this. If this scenario had played out during the Cold War, Trump would likely have faced one of three consequences before even taking office:
a) Exile or imprisonment.
b) A media smear campaign to undermine his reputation (similar to McCarthyism).
c) Assassination.
The CIA of yesteryear would never have tolerated what’s happening today. Despite the passage of time since the Cold War, many believe the CIA hasn’t changed noticeably, as evidenced by their handling of the UAP issues.
So, where’s the CIA in all of this? Why have they seemingly permitted someone they view as a Russian asset to gain power twice? How has it escalated to this level, and why are they quiet?
Here’s my hunch…
This could be linked to the UAP issue.
We’re not talking about “drones in New Jersey” here; this has evolved into a significant congressional matter since discussions reignited in 2017. Since 2020, particularly under the Biden administration, there’s been a concerted push to pressure military and intelligence agencies to be more open about what they know regarding UAPs.
We’re witnessing legislation, released footage, data logs, testimony from pilots and technicians, and a bipartisan agreement among lawmakers during times when cooperation is rare. Agencies have acknowledged the existence of UAPs, and an abundance of circumstantial evidence has emerged. There’s been a notable shift towards transparency, with information gradually released through congressional hearings, public admissions, and Freedom of Information Act requests.
These agencies, particularly the Pentagon, CIA, and Air Force, have been getting closer to being compelled to disclose information both in protected settings and publicly.
Interestingly, this is the first time I’ve seen these organizations act reminiscent of the old Cold War ethos. They’re not interested in being transparent about UAPs, and whatever “it” is must be significant. There appears to be a constitutional crisis as these programs operate with little to no Congressional oversight—essentially rogue. If they are pressured to come clean, leaders of these programs could face prosecution or risk losing their power.
My theory is that they are complicit with the Trump administration (though historically, they wouldn’t have tolerated such a situation). A Trump presidency potentially allows them to operate with fewer checks and balances, similar to the Cold War era, effectively stifling future inquiries.
I observe the shift towards authoritarianism under Trump and struggle to believe these agencies would remain passive. So, how do they gain from this arrangement? Simply put, Trump is easier for them to manage and won’t obstruct their operations, which seems to align with their interests.
For the last decade, they’ve fought to keep information under wraps, and Trump may allow them to extend this cover, if not indefinitely. It buys them time to obfuscate, conceal evidence, and clean house.
I doubt we’ll see any significant disclosures during Trump’s presidency, especially from within the Republican Party.
You might argue, “What about Republicans like Luna, Gaetz, Burchett, etc.?” But considering their denial of the January 6 insurrection and their support for Trump’s authoritarian tendencies, I’m skeptical of their integrity at this point. Many principled Republicans were purged after Trump’s first term, which is telling.
Just some food for thought.
Your post raises some interesting points about the potential motivations behind the actions of American intelligence agencies, particularly in relation to Trump and the ongoing discourse around Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). It’s a nuanced topic that combines elements of politics, national security, and the quest for transparency regarding UAP.
Firstly, your assertion that intelligence agencies might prefer the status quo with Trump due to his perceived malleability is thought-provoking. Historically, intelligence agencies have often thrived in environments where oversight is weak, and if they can operate with less scrutiny during a Trump administration, that might indeed motivate a certain level of complicity or passive acceptance of his leadership.
Your comparison to past Cold War tactics also highlights the drastic shifts in political strategy and the operational landscape of intelligence agencies. It raises the question of whether these agencies are adapting their playbook to modern realities, choosing to wield influence more subtly than they did in the past.
In terms of the UAP situation, you’re right that there has been a significant shift toward transparency in recent years, particularly with bipartisan support in Congress. This newfound openness creates pressure on agencies to disclose what they know. If agencies feel threatened by potential disclosures that could expose wrongdoing, they might view a Trump presidency as a protective measure.
However, it’s also worth considering that intelligence agencies operate in a complex web of politics, and sometimes their choices are driven by calculations that can be difficult to decipher. While they might benefit from a Trump administration in certain ways, there’s also the risk that long-term damage to public trust and their own credibility could outweigh those benefits.
Your skepticism about Republican figures who claim to support UAP transparency is also valid; it reflects a deep-seated concern about the integrity of political actors in a highly polarized environment. It’s incumbent upon the public and responsible lawmakers to scrutinize the actions of both parties and ensure that accountability and transparency remain central goals.
Lastly, I think your call for food for thought is essential. These complexities necessitate ongoing dialogue and critical examination, as the interplay between politics and intelligence continues to evolve. Fostering skepticism while also remaining open to multiple perspectives can help us better understand the current landscape and its implications for the future. Your reflection certainly adds an intriguing angle to the discussion!