/nginx/o/2024/07/02/16195982t1h5b8f.jpg)
A comparison between this year's Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. intelligence community and the previous year's edition indicates that the Trump administration’s priorities have significantly influenced the conclusions presented in the public report, despite its intended nonpartisan nature.
Since 2006, the U.S. intelligence community has published a public Annual Threat Assessment each spring, drawing contributions from as many as 18 agencies. In some respects, it's similar to what many European foreign intelligence agencies do. However, whereas in European countries the initiative for public threat assessments has mainly originated from intelligence agencies, in the United States it emerged as a response to intelligence failures around the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the controversies surrounding intelligence used to justify the Iraq War. The public threat assessment was intended to bring transparency and protect intelligence analysis from political pressure and manipulation.
The current U.S. threat assessment is the first produced under the leadership of National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, a Trump loyalist and Kremlin apologist who has questioned the legitimacy of Ukrainian President.
In this year's report preface the authors again promise that the document is "committed to providing the nuanced, independent, and unvarnished intelligence that policymakers, warfighters, and domestic law enforcement personnel need to protect American lives and America’s interests anywhere in the world."
Comparing the new threat assessment with last year’s version, it is apparent that the Trump administration’s priorities have significantly shaped the intelligence community's conclusions. This doesn't necessarily mean that reports under President Joe Biden were free of ideological leanings; nonetheless, the rapid appearance of the new President's priorities into this year's report suggests a speed and directness unusual for a complex, independently coordinated analytical process involving more than a dozen separate agencies.
:format(webp)/nginx/o/2024/07/16/16225583t1hd44a.jpg)
For instance, last year’s report didn’t even mention Greenland, an issue the new administration now positions prominently as one of America’s key security concerns, addressing it within the contexts of both Russia and China.
In last year's assessment, the chapter on extremist movements specifically mentioned groups "motivated by white supremacy," highlighting their substantial threat to U.S. citizens. This year, white supremacist extremism receives no mention at all.
The 2024 report exclusively depicted migrants as victims of human trafficking, whereas the latest report portrays them explicitly as a threat. "The total number of migrants trying to reach the United States has dropped significantly since January 2025 due to a surge in border security enforcement," the report notes—strikingly offering what amounts to a favorable judgment on government policy, a stance traditionally avoided in intelligence reports to uphold political neutrality.
Mexican drug cartels were already addressed under Joe Biden, yet in the current assessment, these cartels receive markedly greater prominence. The 2025 Annual Threat Assessment elevated fentanyl trafficking by international drug cartels to a top national security threat, surpassing traditional concerns such as China, Russia, and Iran. This shift aligns with the Trump administration's emphasis on border security and combating illegal immigration.
Certain chapters featured previously are missing this year. The section on climate change — which was given a separate page of attention last year — is now absent entirely. Similarly gone is the prior section addressing pandemic threats. Under Biden, the threat assessment painted a dark picture of a world still reeling from pandemics, emphasizing how outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza, cholera, dengue, Ebola, monkeypox, and polio were severely straining healthcare systems globally.
These clearly observable differences point to significant Presidential Administration influence over the public intelligence threat assessment and raise the question of whether this influence extends into the sections most immediately relevant to Europe — particularly those concerning Russia.
In the first Annual Threat Assessment published during Trump's second term, the U.S. intelligence community now argues — differing markedly from previous positions — that Russia's growing capability and increased nuclear risk compel the U.S. to urgently seek ways to end the war, asserting that the method of ending the war (such as decisively defeating Russia) does not affect future threats emanating from Russia.
/nginx/o/2025/03/28/16742030t1h2587.jpg)
This stands in fundamental contrast to positions articulated by European governments, which frequently argue that a Russian victory or even stalemate in Ukraine will inevitably result in increased threats to European security. How convincingly this latter claim has been justified is another question.
Unlike last year's intelligence assessment, the current report declares explicitly that continued war between Russia and Ukraine itself constitutes a direct threat to the U.S., citing increased escalation risks (including nuclear war) and heightened security threats to NATO allies, particularly in Central, Eastern, and Northern Europe.
The continuing war also supposedly emboldens China and North Korea to adopt more aggressive postures. One can thus interpret from this report that even a disadvantageous peace would be safer for the United States than a prolonged war. Interestingly, the U.S. intelligence assessment this year attributes to Ukrainian President Zelensky a specific stance toward U.S.-led peace negotiations, asserting — as if a factual inevitability — that Zelensky "likely recognizes his position is weakening, future Western aid is uncertain, and thus understands the necessity of a ceasefire." Left unsaid is the fact that the U.S. administration itself plays a central role in generating uncertainty about Western support.
Of course, there is no reason to dismiss the entire U.S. intelligence report as mere political propaganda. Indeed, the assessment includes claims that may not align with Trump's preferences, such as hinting that a ceasefire on unfavorable terms would not solve Ukraine’s security problems and that Russia remains motivated to continue the war.
However, the significant shifts in America’s public intelligence assessment clearly indicate that the Trump administration exercises direct and explicit influence over what is supposed to be independent intelligence analysis.