Ill-Prepared: How We Have Unlearned the Lessons of 9/11 

As we mark the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, it is important to not only reflect on that tragedy but to focus on the lessons learned and to assess where our nation stands today.

In the years following the attacks, America worked to reduce the weaknesses that allowed the terrorists to succeed. The country strengthened its counterterrorism capabilities, stood up the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and created institutions such as the Department of Homeland Security and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA.

Our leaders also recognized that our national security is not simply about having more intelligence, more surveillance and new coordinating agencies, but it depends on seasoned leaders and professionals in place who can connect the dots, challenge assumptions and alert the country to danger.

Today, the lessons of 9/11 are being tested by President Donald Trump who has spent his first 20 months back in office placing people with dubious qualifications in key leadership positions and systematically removing long-time professionals from national security jobs where expertise matters. Some of those have been ousted based on loyalty tests, sacked as retribution for taking part in past investigations of the president or simply were swept up in arbitrary downsizing efforts that disregarded the institutional knowledge being lost.

Trump also has ignored facts that are contrary to his preexisting views; devalued expertise and experience; demoralized the workforce; was slow to fill some key national security jobs; and has been accused of engaging in corrupt practices to financially benefit himself, his family and his allies, which could cloud critical national security judgments.

Undermining Our National Security

There are numerous troubling examples of Trump weakening and undermining the nation’s security. They include:

Selecting leaders without adequate qualifications

Presidents are entitled to choose people who share their policy views, but political loyalty should not be a substitute for professional expertise, management experience, independent judgment and people who are willing to challenge the chief executive’s assumptions. President Trump has chosen loyalty over competence and experience, resulting in costly missteps that have placed the nation at risk.

The Department of War is the world’s largest military organization that encompasses about 2.8 million civilian and military personnel, has a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars and oversees global military operations and alliances. As the head of the department, Pete Hegseth, a former FOX television host, came to the job with no experience managing a large organization and no national security expertise.

Earlier in his tenure, Hegseth shared classified details about a pending military air strike in Yemen during a group messaging chat that mistakenly included a journalist. Now he is presiding over a prolonged and costly war with Iran that has left the country dangerously low on military stockpiles of key precision munitions and missile interceptors, has interrupted the flow of oil from the Mideast that has led to rising gasoline prices and left the Pentagon short of funds.

At the same time, Hegseth has imposed restrictions on the Pentagon press corps that forced dozens of journalists out of the building, and more recently it was reported that he put conservative veterans with social media followings on the government payroll to amplify his messages.

Kash Patel, a former podcast personality, worked as a federal prosecutor and in national security roles during the first Trump administration but had never run a large organization before taking charge of the FBI, which has 35,000 employees and a multi-billion-dollar budget. During his tenure, Patel has not shown independence from political considerations or from the president as the job requires and as other FBI directors have done, raising questions about his impartiality and judgment when it comes to law enforcement and matters of national security.

In addition, Patel faced scrutiny after he flew on a government jet to Italy for the Winter Olympics and chugged beer with the U.S. men’s hockey team following their gold medal victory, and after he used a government plane related to personal travel with his girlfriend, a country singer, and assigned an elite FBI SWAT security detail to protect her. This conduct along with other actions such as prematurely disclosing information about pending cases has raised questions about his judgment, seriousness and stewardship of an important national-security institution.

Patel also has been a supporter of the now-pardoned Jan. 6 rioters, claiming on his podcasts that the incident was provoked by undercover FBI agents who he referred to as “criminal gangsters” while describing the rioters as political prisoners.

Tulsi Gabbard, a former member of Congress from Hawaii, served until recently as director of national intelligence despite having no previous intelligence or management experience and having espoused controversial views including implying Russian President Vladimir Putin had valid grounds for invading Ukraine. The law explicitly states that any individual nominated for appointment as director of national intelligence should all have “extensive national security expertise.” Congress deliberately imposed this requirement, which it effectively ignored in Gabbard’s case, because the director of national intelligence oversees the entire intelligence community and has a duty to provide independent, informed intelligence judgments to the president.

When Gabbard resigned earlier this year, Trump temporarily replaced her with Bill Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency director who did not have a security clearance and who is best known for using information from the housing agencies he regulated to gin up prosecutions of individuals Trump does not like.

The Gabbard case, along with the prior examples, illustrates how the Senate has been derelict in its advice and consent duties.

These examples not only highlight the consequences of placing loyalty over experience, but they also point to the need for the Senate to take up a more rigorous process to ensure that presidential appointees are qualified, experienced, strong stewards of taxpayer dollars and prioritize public good over personal interests.

Removing critical national security expertise

The bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, found that in the years before that tragic day, budget constraints produced significant reductions in intelligence staffing that limited the number and training of analysts while the FBI lacked adequate resources for intelligence collection, translation and strategic analysis.

Now, 25 years later, the Trump administration has made deliberate decisions to shed key individuals based on ideology and loyalty to the president that has resulted in loss of significant accumulated knowledge, relationships and judgment.

At the Pentagon, for example, Hegseth has presided over an unprecedented purge of experienced military leaders, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chief of Naval Operations and many other senior officers. With the recent resignation of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, the military’s largest service is now operating without its top civilian leader, a Senate-confirmed top general, a confirmed Army general in charge of operations and a confirmed commander of Army troops in Europe.

All told, it has been reported that Hegseth has fired or blocked the promotions of more than 80 generals and admirals, representing about 10 percent of the military’s top officers and stripping the military and the country of vital experience and expertise.

At the FBI, Patel purged dozens of career agents and analysts including individuals involved in national security, resulting in the loss of important expertise needed to protect the country from potential threats. He also disbanded a counterintelligence unit tasked with monitoring threats from Iran and pushed out senior FBI officials who oversaw international terrorism efforts. Numerous FBI agents ousted by Patel had contributed to past investigations of the president and the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.

At the Justice Department under former Attorney General Pam Bondi, the national security division, which is responsible for many of the most complex and sensitive cases, also was decimated by firings, forced transfers and retirements.

CISA, the nation’s civilian defender against digital intrusions, has lost a third of its workforce including senior leaders during the Trump administration. This comes at a time of escalating attacks from hostile governments, including Iran, and has placed American infrastructure in jeopardy.

Moreover, the National Security Council, the entity created to help coordinate the government’s response to foreign threats, has lost about 45% of its staff. While limiting the NSC’s role as a critical coordinating body, Trump has chosen not to name a full-time leader and instead has placed Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the job. This has required Rubio to act as a key foreign policy player and a referee of different points of view from across the government as the country is in the midst of a war and faces numerous national security threats.

The precise numbers are classified, but it has been reported that there has been a historic wave of departures at the CIA that outstrips anything in recent memory. In addition, there have been reports of significant staff reduction at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. While there have been questions about the effectiveness of ODNI, the cutbacks were made hastily and without debate, showing a lack of strategy in ensuring agencies have the capacity to keep our country safe.

Crushing the morale of those who remain

The loss of personnel and the relentless and reckless attacks on the federal workforce by the administration has left federal employees disengaged, demoralized and fearful. The Partnership’s 2025 workforce survey found extraordinarily low employee engagement and satisfaction across the government, including at national security and diplomatic agencies.

The Department of State, for example, registered an engagement and satisfaction score of only 20.1 out of 100 while the Department of Homeland Security’s score was just 26.1 out of 100. The Department of the Army had a score of 48.1 out of 100, but nearly half of employees (49.5%) reported having a worse experience compared to 2024, and only 9.1% agreed that Hegseth’s political leadership team generates high levels of motivation in the workforce.

The Office of the Secretary of War had a score of 40.6 out of 100, while the Department of the Air Force (38.5) and the Department of the Navy (36.4) scored even lower.

The low employee engagement scores, reflecting poor morale and a largely negative workplace culture in the sectors of national security that were surveyed, is concerning, especially as the U.S. engages in the war with Iran and faces a host of other serious international challenges. No government can serve or protect the public effectively with such rampant dysfunction in the national security workforce.

Devaluing facts and ignoring advice that contradicts pre-existing views

The president has often subordinated U.S. intelligence assessments to his pre-existing beliefs or a preferred narrative. It was reported that the intelligence community’s assessment prior to the launch of the Iran war was that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon, that killing Iran’s supreme leader could produce increased resistance and that a war could lead to closure of the Strait of Hormuz and trigger attacks on U.S. forces and allies. Trump ignored the warning from national security experts, operating on the assumption that American military power could produce a decisive result. Now more than six months later, the conflict remains unresolved and has created a global energy crisis, led to more hardline Iranian leadership, the deaths of U.S. soldiers and a drain on critical U.S. munitions, among many other negative consequences.

Leaving gaps in key national security positions

One of the key findings of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission was that the George W. Bush administration did not have many key Senate-confirmed national security positions filled, or they had only recently been filled when the terrorist attack occurred due in large part to the delayed presidential transition, significantly hampering the government’s preparedness.

A Partnership analysis has found that this lesson from 9/11 was not heeded by Trump, with key Senate-confirmed national security positions going unfilled for nearly half of the time during the president’s first year back in office.

For example, the undersecretary for intelligence at the Department of War and the undersecretary for intelligence and analysis at the Department of Homeland Security were not confirmed until July 2025, six months into the administration. In addition, Trump retained no holdovers in 46 national security positions, making it more difficult to assure continuity and leaving some important positions vacant for extended periods of time. This is far fewer holdovers than Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

At the same time, the Partnership has found a substantial loss of career leadership in national security positions at such entities as the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and CISA, potentially jeopardizing the government’s ability to effectively address critical threats.

Questions of corruption and self-interest

The president and his family have been the beneficiaries of largess from foreign interests, actions that could make the national security system more vulnerable to foreign influence and result in compromised judgments that may not be in the best interests of the country. It is critical for our leaders to place the country’s interests ahead of personal and financial interests, but when the president and his family have personal financial relationships with foreign governments and foreign political figures, the country faces the possibility of decision-making that may be biased and compromised.

Trump’s acceptance of a $400 million Boeing 747 luxury jet from the Qatari government for use as Air Force One, for example, sparked intense bipartisan backlash and accusations of corruption. The jet, which Trump said he will retain for his presidential library once he leaves office, lacked essential military defenses found on traditional Air Force One fleets and had to be abandoned by Trump in the middle of an overseas trip due to security concerns.

Just prior to Trump’s inauguration, the intelligence/national security adviser of the United Arab Emirates invested in World Liberty Financial, the Trump-family-linked cryptocurrency company, in a deal worth about $500 million. Trump and his family ultimately received millions of dollars from the transaction. The investment came before the administration granted the UAE access to highly sensitive and tightly guarded American artificial intelligence chips.

In addition, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., the president’s sons, are key investors in a newly created drone company, entangling the first family’s business interests with an administration that has taken steps to prioritize domestic production of military-grade drones. Eric Trump also is an investor in an Israeli drone maker that has secured a multi-million-dollar contract from the Pentagon while Donald Trump Jr.’s investment firm has taken a stake in a defense company that specializes in unmanned combat machinery that has secured government contracts. These are a few examples of a web of personal financial entanglements that this administration has embraced to the detriment of the security of our country.

Conclusion: Ignoring the lessons of 9/11

Our world is more dangerous, fast-moving and complicated than it was 25 years ago, and the risks to all of us are enormous. The primary responsibility of our government is to keep us safe and the first responsibility of the president is to ensure that our public institutions are best able to accomplish that goal.

During the past year and a half, there has been a derogation of that duty by Trump in the most profound way possible. The 9/11 terrorist attacks were facilitated in part by the fact that we did not have leaders in place soon enough following the 2000 presidential election and we did not have sufficient national security staff capable of connecting dots and detecting the warning signals.

During his second term, Trump has systematically weakened our country’s national security in a variety of ways, from appointing leaders without qualifications to critically important jobs to removing experienced national security professionals.

The decisions of the president have not only undermined the progress the country has made, but it has created a much scarier set of circumstances due to the mismanagement of our government. The result is a less capable national security system—one in which experience is discarded, expertise is devalued and judgment can be clouded by interests other than what is best for the country.

At a time when the capabilities of our adversaries have grown, the president is making our nation less prepared to detect and respond to foreign threats and less safe than we were before Sept. 11, 2001.

The first step in redressing these challenges is for the president to recognize the problems he has created and learn from his mistakes, a tall challenge. This is why it is also critical for Congress to conduct more rigorous oversight regarding the national security agencies, the erosion of capabilities due to the recent loss of critical expertise and the conflicts of interest that could compromise decision-making and our safety.

The Senate, in particular, has the obligation to thoroughly review and confirm presidential appointees for top level positions, and it needs to be more rigorous in ensuring that nominees for key national security jobs have the necessary qualifications and judgment to lead these complex organizations.

Trump’s national security team should be rebuilt by focusing first and foremost on filling key positions based on competency, character and leaders willing to challenge his assumptions.

The country also needs a long-term investment in rebuilding and reimagining our national security components, which will require engagement and action from the White House, Congress and the public.

The Partnership has begun outlining what reforming our government should look like through our Government for New Era initiative, a set of policy proposals designed to address the root causes of the current dysfunction and to help make our entire federal system more effective, responsive and accountable.

One recommendation involves adding political appointee qualification requirements to ensure officials setting policy direction in the national security arena have the necessary command of the substance and are prepared to lead. Congress also should ensure the proper balance between career and political leadership at national security agencies in order to maintain the necessary experience, expertise and stability over the long term that career leaders can provide.

Our government’s national security system has been weakened by the Trump administration, particularly with the loss of experienced personnel and questionable leadership at key government agencies. The time to remember the lessons of 9/11 and make changes isn’t after the next attack, it is now.

The Partnership for Public Service is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to building a better government and a stronger democracy.