The agency created to share information across governments is accused of distorting its intelligence to play down the threats posed by Russia and white supremacists.
By Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Adam Goldman
Sept. 11, 2020Updated 8:28 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON — Well before his move to the Department of Homeland Security, Brian Murphy had become known as an ambitious counterterrorism investigator at the F.B.I., determined and relentless. At times, though, colleagues chafed at what some saw as an overzealous disregard for bureaucratic rules.
All of those traits may have been at play this week when Mr. Murphy, a career law enforcement officer, became a whistle-blower.
The Department of Homeland Security was built after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, 19 years ago Friday, to keep federal, state and local governments coordinated on national security threats. But in his whistle-blower complaint, Mr. Murphy, the department’s former intelligence chief, said its senior leaders directed him to do the opposite: play down the primary national security threats of white supremacy and Russian election interference, thus distorting intelligence to mirror President Trump’s messaging.
The allegations, coming less than two months before Election Day, add to the growing evidence that Mr. Trump has prioritized his own political goals over the word of his intelligence officials, and that the Homeland Security Department has become an instrument of his personal will. Mr. Murphy’s complaint reflects the current turmoil at homeland security and is another front in Mr. Trump’s battle with the government’s intelligence agencies.
The allegations also add to Mr. Murphy’s reputation. “Could he be a bit of a bull in a china shop? Absolutely,” said Kerry Sleeper, a former assistant director of the F.B.I. who once supervised Mr. Murphy. “But also that’s a person that allows change to happen.”
Mr. Murphy is not the first high-ranking official at the agency to rebel. A former chief of staff for the department, Miles Taylor, and a top counterterrorism analyst, Elizabeth Neumann, have also emerged as sharp voices of dissent after claiming the White House did not take the threat of white nationalism seriously, even after analysts found that such racists were significantly more deadly than far-left groups.
After close of business on Friday, the department also issued a “public action plan” detailing steps it would take to prevent terrorism, nearly a year after the agency singled out violent white supremacy as a primary national security threat and committed to releasing the blueprint to prevent it. The plan describes combating violent extremists groups but does not specifically mention white supremacist violence.
Mr. Murphy is still at the department, even after Chad F. Wolf, the acting secretary of homeland security, demoted him when reports emerged that his office made note of American journalists who had published leaked documents — including them in intelligence briefings his office shared with law enforcement agencies.
Mr. Murphy said in the whistle-blower complaint that the demotion was retaliation for his clashes with Mr. Wolf over what he asserted were efforts to warp intelligence reports.
“Why did D.H.S. come into existence? It came in to share information that state and local partners weren’t getting,” said Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a law enforcement policy organization. “It filled a void that didn’t exist. So if you start to filter that information, we’re back to square one.”
Mr. Murphy is currently preparing for interviews about the intelligence office with the inspector general of the Homeland Security Department and the House Intelligence Committee. The committee has been investigating the department’s intelligence branch since July after the office authorized analysts to collect information on protesters who damaged statues and monuments. The committee has received internal documents and is preparing to interview witnesses on the agency’s deployment of tactical agents to Portland, Ore.
Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the committee, said in a letter on Friday that it had expanded its investigation to include the “improper politicization of intelligence and political interference.” The Republican-led intelligence committee in the Senate notified the department on Thursday that it, too, would investigate on a bipartisan basis claims made by Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy is expected to testify on Sept. 21 in a closed-door session with the committee. The House Homeland Security Committee also issued a subpoena to Mr. Wolf to testify in a public hearing on Sept. 17 after he refused to commit to doing so by citing his pending nomination.
He has gone from accused to accuser in a matter of weeks. Previous witnesses against the Trump administration, such as Alexander S. Vindman and Marie L. Yovanovitch, have been painted by critics of the president in golden hues. Mr. Murphy is more complicated: Last month, Mr. Schiff said he was concerned Mr. Murphy had misled Congress over the office’s intelligence gathering methods during the unrest in Portland.
Mr. Murphy, a conservative Republican who supported Mr. Trump in 2016, saw the senior intelligence position at homeland security as a logical next step for his counterterrorism career, former officials who worked with him said. His work at the F.B.I. earned him the nickname T-1000, after the almost indestructible, relentless android in the movie “Terminator 2.”
But his brusque style and penchant for going alone over repeated warnings from superiors to hew more closely to the rules ultimately stalled his career at the F.B.I. before he could land a plum assignment running a field office, a former senior law enforcement official said.
In interviews, former colleagues saw him as a “freelancer” who was determined to see investigations to the end, even if it meant ignoring unwritten rules of an institution. That reputation led some in F.B.I. leadership and the Justice Department to sour on him, according to interviews with nine former colleagues who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the whistle-blower and the homeland security intelligence office.
Mr. Murphy’s commitment to collaborating with state and local law governments also made the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Homeland Security Department attractive.
The department’s intelligence office has struggled to distinguish itself from other intelligence agencies as a source for information since it was created in 2007, five years after the Homeland Security Act of 2002 conjured its legal existence.
By Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Adam Goldman
Sept. 11, 2020Updated 8:28 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON — Well before his move to the Department of Homeland Security, Brian Murphy had become known as an ambitious counterterrorism investigator at the F.B.I., determined and relentless. At times, though, colleagues chafed at what some saw as an overzealous disregard for bureaucratic rules.
All of those traits may have been at play this week when Mr. Murphy, a career law enforcement officer, became a whistle-blower.
The Department of Homeland Security was built after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, 19 years ago Friday, to keep federal, state and local governments coordinated on national security threats. But in his whistle-blower complaint, Mr. Murphy, the department’s former intelligence chief, said its senior leaders directed him to do the opposite: play down the primary national security threats of white supremacy and Russian election interference, thus distorting intelligence to mirror President Trump’s messaging.
The allegations, coming less than two months before Election Day, add to the growing evidence that Mr. Trump has prioritized his own political goals over the word of his intelligence officials, and that the Homeland Security Department has become an instrument of his personal will. Mr. Murphy’s complaint reflects the current turmoil at homeland security and is another front in Mr. Trump’s battle with the government’s intelligence agencies.
The allegations also add to Mr. Murphy’s reputation. “Could he be a bit of a bull in a china shop? Absolutely,” said Kerry Sleeper, a former assistant director of the F.B.I. who once supervised Mr. Murphy. “But also that’s a person that allows change to happen.”
Mr. Murphy is not the first high-ranking official at the agency to rebel. A former chief of staff for the department, Miles Taylor, and a top counterterrorism analyst, Elizabeth Neumann, have also emerged as sharp voices of dissent after claiming the White House did not take the threat of white nationalism seriously, even after analysts found that such racists were significantly more deadly than far-left groups.
After close of business on Friday, the department also issued a “public action plan” detailing steps it would take to prevent terrorism, nearly a year after the agency singled out violent white supremacy as a primary national security threat and committed to releasing the blueprint to prevent it. The plan describes combating violent extremists groups but does not specifically mention white supremacist violence.
Mr. Murphy is still at the department, even after Chad F. Wolf, the acting secretary of homeland security, demoted him when reports emerged that his office made note of American journalists who had published leaked documents — including them in intelligence briefings his office shared with law enforcement agencies.
Mr. Murphy said in the whistle-blower complaint that the demotion was retaliation for his clashes with Mr. Wolf over what he asserted were efforts to warp intelligence reports.
“Why did D.H.S. come into existence? It came in to share information that state and local partners weren’t getting,” said Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a law enforcement policy organization. “It filled a void that didn’t exist. So if you start to filter that information, we’re back to square one.”
Mr. Murphy is currently preparing for interviews about the intelligence office with the inspector general of the Homeland Security Department and the House Intelligence Committee. The committee has been investigating the department’s intelligence branch since July after the office authorized analysts to collect information on protesters who damaged statues and monuments. The committee has received internal documents and is preparing to interview witnesses on the agency’s deployment of tactical agents to Portland, Ore.
Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the committee, said in a letter on Friday that it had expanded its investigation to include the “improper politicization of intelligence and political interference.” The Republican-led intelligence committee in the Senate notified the department on Thursday that it, too, would investigate on a bipartisan basis claims made by Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy is expected to testify on Sept. 21 in a closed-door session with the committee. The House Homeland Security Committee also issued a subpoena to Mr. Wolf to testify in a public hearing on Sept. 17 after he refused to commit to doing so by citing his pending nomination.
He has gone from accused to accuser in a matter of weeks. Previous witnesses against the Trump administration, such as Alexander S. Vindman and Marie L. Yovanovitch, have been painted by critics of the president in golden hues. Mr. Murphy is more complicated: Last month, Mr. Schiff said he was concerned Mr. Murphy had misled Congress over the office’s intelligence gathering methods during the unrest in Portland.
Mr. Murphy, a conservative Republican who supported Mr. Trump in 2016, saw the senior intelligence position at homeland security as a logical next step for his counterterrorism career, former officials who worked with him said. His work at the F.B.I. earned him the nickname T-1000, after the almost indestructible, relentless android in the movie “Terminator 2.”
But his brusque style and penchant for going alone over repeated warnings from superiors to hew more closely to the rules ultimately stalled his career at the F.B.I. before he could land a plum assignment running a field office, a former senior law enforcement official said.
In interviews, former colleagues saw him as a “freelancer” who was determined to see investigations to the end, even if it meant ignoring unwritten rules of an institution. That reputation led some in F.B.I. leadership and the Justice Department to sour on him, according to interviews with nine former colleagues who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the whistle-blower and the homeland security intelligence office.
Mr. Murphy’s commitment to collaborating with state and local law governments also made the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Homeland Security Department attractive.
The department’s intelligence office has struggled to distinguish itself from other intelligence agencies as a source for information since it was created in 2007, five years after the Homeland Security Act of 2002 conjured its legal existence.
