Inside the Controversy: Why Trump Backed MBS Despite U.S. Intelligence Findings

Trumps Defense of MBS: What It Reveals About U.S. Intelligence and Power Politics

I read about President Trump’s meeting with the Saudi crown prince, and what stood out to me was the sharp gap between what Donald Trump said in public and what U.S. intelligence had already concluded about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. In the Oval Office, he backed Mohammed bin Salman and said the crown prince knew nothing about the killing. But the intelligence assessment made it clear that MBS approved an operation to capture or kill Khashoggi, based on his tight command over Saudi security services and the involvement of his trusted protective unit.

     To me, the logic behind that assessment is straightforward. MBS runs the security state with a firm grip, signs off on major actions, and keeps close control of the people who would have been involved. It is hard to imagine such a sensitive and risky mission happening without his say-so. That view isn’t fringe either. It has been broadly accepted by regional experts and policy analysts, even though Saudi Arabia disputes it.

     What strikes me most is not just the disagreement between Trump and the intelligence community, but the way the moment played out. The president publicly sided with the crown prince while leaving the intelligence findings unacknowledged, which sent a signal far beyond that room. It suggested that political alignment or personal rapport could outweigh formal assessments and the gravity of a journalist’s killing.

     It reminded me a bit of my spy thriller novel Mission of Vengeance, where CIA spymaster Corey Pearson is guided by a president who refuses to back U.S. intelligence policies that prop up dictators and tyrannical regimes, which makes the contrast in real life all the more striking.

     When I think about this from a national security angle, the implications feel pretty direct. If the United States signals that certain partners can cross major lines without consequence, it weakens the country’s credibility when trying to deter similar behavior from rivals. It also muddies the values it claims to defend. Allies start to wonder what the standards really are, and adversaries take note when power seems to carry impunity.

     For America, strong security doesn’t come only from military strength or strategic ties. It also comes from the consistency of its principles and the reliability of its word. When the United States speaks clearly, acts consistently, and backs its intelligence, it can rally allies and set boundaries that others respect. When those signals get mixed, the country loses leverage. In a world already tilting toward more aggressive state behavior, that loss has a way of coming back to bite.

 

Robert Morton is a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO) and writes about the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC). He also writes the full-length Corey Pearson- CIA Spymaster Series, which blends his knowledge of real-life intelligence operations with gripping fictional storytelling. His thrillers reveal the shadowy world of covert missions and betrayal with striking realism.