Tying the CIA’s Hands: The Danger of Excessive Congressional Oversight

 

When Secrecy Saves Lives: Why the CIA Needs to Operate in the Shadows

Forty years ago, Senator Frank Church came out swinging, calling the CIA a "rogue elephant rampaging out of control." It was a catchy phrase, something that stuck in people’s heads, and it made the agency sound like a wild beast, running amok without anyone keeping an eye on it. Sure, the idea had some truth to it, but it completely missed the bigger picture.

     What Church didn’t get was that by slapping heavy-handed oversight on the CIA, he was actually tying the hands of the very people who were out there protecting America from serious threats. His committee’s deep dive into CIA activities wasn’t just about uncovering wrongdoings—it sparked a bunch of reforms that made it a lot harder for the agency to get the job done. All those new restrictions might have looked good on paper, but in the real world, they slowed everything down. The CIA found itself caught in red tape, just when it needed to be nimble and quick.

     Church’s big move to rein in the agency didn’t fix the problem—it made it worse. The enemy didn’t take a break because of more paperwork. It kept plotting. And the people on the front lines, the ones who were supposed to stop them, suddenly had one arm tied behind their backs.

     A prime example of how Church’s actions backfired came in the 1970s, when his findings led to the CIA having to pull back on missions aimed at stopping terrorist groups. Suddenly, the agency was shackled by new rules and oversight, forced to dial back vital intelligence-gathering that had kept groups like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) in check. As a result, the PFLP gained ground, unchecked and growing bolder. Not long after these restrictions, they pulled off a string of high-profile hijackings, including the infamous Entebbe hostage crisis in 1976. It was a disaster.

     Had the CIA not been held back, there’s a good chance those attacks could have been prevented. But instead, the agency found itself operating with one hand tied behind its back, all because Senator Church pushed a narrative that didn’t fully reflect the brutal realities of international espionage. His well-meaning attempts to put the CIA on a leash actually left America more vulnerable. Sometimes, the very secrecy he criticized is exactly what keeps the country safe.

     Church’s investigation also gave birth to permanent intelligence committees in Congress. The idea was to make sure the CIA didn’t run wild and that future covert operations were properly monitored. Sounds good, right? In theory, sure. But in practice, it didn’t exactly work out that way. These committees quickly figured out how to play the game themselves, using plausible deniability to cover their own backs when things went south.

     Take 1984 as an example. President Reagan’s CIA was running a covert op, mining the harbors in Nicaragua to undermine the Sandinista government. The CIA had briefed both the House and Senate intelligence committees on the operation early in the year, but when the media broke the story in April, suddenly everyone in Congress acted like they were blindsided.

     There was all this “outrage” and “shock,” but the truth was, they knew. They’d been briefed. The problem wasn’t that they didn’t know—it was that they didn’t want to take the heat when things went public. Senator Patrick Leahy hit the nail on the head when he called it “a lousy job of legislative action.”

     In the end, the committees had adopted the very same plausible deniability they claimed they were trying to prevent, all while leaving the CIA exposed and America in more danger than before.

     The thing about too much oversight is, it can actually work against the very thing it’s supposed to protect—national security. There’s a fine line between holding the intelligence community accountable and exposing its operations to unnecessary risk. Not every covert mission can be written down, argued over, and picked apart by Congress. Some things have to stay in the dark. That’s where real spycraft happens—under the radar, where exposure isn’t just an inconvenience, it’s a genuine threat to national security.

     In my spy thriller Mission of Vengeance, CIA operative Corey Pearson operates at what’s called the "Obscure Transgression" level—or OT level. At OT level, only Pearson, his team, the President, and the top brass at the CIA know what’s really going on. There’s no congressional oversight, no committees poking their heads into the mission. It’s a world of black funding and total secrecy. They’re not out there dodging accountability; they’re keeping things quiet because some threats are so serious, they can’t afford to play by the usual rules. At OT level, Pearson and his team take on the most dangerous missions with the understanding that exposure doesn’t just risk the operation—it puts the entire country in danger.

     We’ve seen real-life examples of covert missions getting compromised, often by the very congressional committees meant to keep them safe. When that happens, it’s not just the mission that goes down—it’s America’s ability to stay one step ahead of its enemies. Some secrets are meant to stay buried for a reason. Sometimes, plausible deniability isn’t just a tool for the President—it’s a necessity for the operatives risking their lives to keep us safe.

     Yes, oversight is crucial. But there are times when too much oversight becomes the problem, not the solution. At the end of the day, protecting America means letting the CIA do what it was designed to do—operate in the shadows, out of the public eye. Because once you start exposing every secret, you risk exposing the very defenses that are keeping us safe in the first place. 

Robert Morton is a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO) and the author of the "Corey Pearson- CIA Spymaster" spy thriller series.