JUDGE PREVENTS TRUMP'S CIA FIRINGS. CALLING BS

ACTIVIST JUDGES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO FLOURISH

This Is Not a First Amendment Issue—It’s About Loyalty, National Security, and Upholding the President’s Mandate!

In recent weeks, Judge Anthony Trenga has put a temporary hold on the dismissal of several CIA employees, citing a need to hear their First and Fifth Amendment defenses. These intelligence officers claim they were being targeted for termination due to their assumed support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)—a political ideology that the Trump administration has correctly identified as divisive, ideological, and antithetical to national unity.

While Judge Trenga—a George W. Bush appointee with a history of supporting Democratic candidates—may be acting out of judicial caution or personal motivation, the underlying claim is flawed. This is not a First Amendment case. It’s a matter of national security, institutional integrity, and the executive branch’s right to set personnel and policy priorities.

First Amendment Rights Don’t Grant Ideological Immunity Inside the CIA

The First Amendment protects Americans from government retaliation for private speech. But it has never guaranteed the right to promote personal ideologies within the federal workplace, especially within the U.S. intelligence community.

If a CIA officer were using internal platforms to advocate for Marxist-Leninist thought, or claimed the United States would be better off modeled after the People's Republic of China, there would be no question about their fitness for duty. No court would seriously entertain a First Amendment defense in that case. The government would act decisively—and rightly—to remove such a threat to its institutional coherence.

So why are DEI ideologues treated differently?

The Trump administration’s executive order recognized DEI not as a benign set of HR policies, but as a highly politicized framework that undermines the meritocratic, mission-focused operations of government. It creates division, erodes trust among personnel, and—worst of all—injects ideological litmus tests into environments that demand absolute loyalty to the Constitution and the interests of the American people.

Intelligence Agencies Must Be Ideologically Neutral and Mission-Driven

The CIA is not a university campus. It’s not a social club. It’s not a vehicle for cultural experimentation. It is an elite organization charged with safeguarding national security and executing the President’s foreign policy. Officers in such roles do not have a right to use their positions to advocate for or embed political ideology, even under the guise of “inclusivity.”

When a president—duly elected by the American people—issues a directive to eliminate divisive ideological programs from the federal government, it is the duty of those institutions to comply. If certain employees view their personal beliefs as more important than national priorities, then they are not victims—they are insubordinate.

This Is a National Security Concern, Not a Free Speech Debate

Trenga’s decision to entertain the officers’ First Amendment claims is concerning, especially in light of his bipartisan backing and history of support for Democratic causes. It raises a broader issue: why are some ideologies being given more constitutional cover than others?

Would any judge hold up the firing of a CIA employee who expressed admiration for Al-Qaeda’s values? Or who said they believed the Islamic Republic of Iran had a superior moral code? Of course not. Because national security demands allegiance, discretion, and a unified operational focus.

The DEI movement, in many of its modern forms, teaches that America is systemically flawed, racist, and in need of radical transformation. This message is not merely academic—it has operational consequences in environments like the CIA, where unity of purpose is essential.

WHO'S THE BOSS?: The President Sets the Agenda

The Trump administration was elected on a promise to root out bureaucratic corruption, left-wing indoctrination, and institutional rot. The firing of CIA staffers for advancing political ideologies—regardless of how fashionable those ideologies may be—was a necessary step toward restoring order and focus to our intelligence agencies.

This is not about suppressing free speech. It’s about ensuring that the people hired to defend America actually believe in it. And that is a presidential prerogative—one that no federal judge should interfere with lightly.