Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:00:15.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No Gestapo: J. Edgar Hoover's world-wide intelligence service and the limits of bureaucratic autonomy in the national security state

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2021

Harry Blain Open the ORCID record for Harry Blain [Opens in a new window]
Harry Blain*
Affiliation:
Political Science Department, City University of New York, Graduate Center, New York, New York, USA
*
Corresponding author: Harry Blain, Email: hblain@gradcenter.cuny.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How powerful are national security bureaucrats? In the United States, they seem to be more than mere administrators, while remaining subordinate to elected politicians. However, despite a rich literature in American political development on bureaucratic autonomy across a variety of policy areas, national security remains undertheorized. Although the origins and evolution of the national security bureaucracy have received substantial scholarly attention, the individuals within this bureaucracy have not. In this article, I examine a case study of how one of these individuals bluntly ran up against the limits of his power. After the Second World War, J. Edgar Hoover's plans for a “World-Wide Intelligence Service” were swiftly shot down by the Truman administration, which adopted a sharp distinction between domestic and global intelligence instead. I pin this abject defeat on three interrelated factors: the resistance of President Truman, the array of bureaucratic competitors emerging from the Second World War, and deep aversion among key decision makers to the prospect of an “American gestapo.” While tracing this historical narrative, I also challenge accounts of Hoover as a near-omnipotent Washington operator, question the extent to which war empowers national security bureaucrats, and foreground the role of analogies in shaping the national security state.

Keywords

bureaucracynational securityintelligence
Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , October 2021 , pp. 214 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 U.S. Congress, House Subcommittee on Government Information and Individual Rights, Hearings on Inquiry into the Destruction of Former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's Files and FBI Record Keeping, 94th Congress, 1st Sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975).

2 For example, Gentry, Curt, J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets (New York: W.W. Norton, 1991)Google Scholar; Summers, Anthony, Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1993)Google Scholar.

3 On congressional influence over the bureaucracy, see McCubbins, Mathew D., Noll, Roger G., and Weingast, Barry R., “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control,” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 3, no. 2 (1987): 243–77Google Scholar; Mathew D. McCubbins and Thomas Schwartz, “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols Versus Fire Alarms,” American Journal of Political Science (1984): 165–79; Kiewiet, Roderick D. and McCubbins, Mathew D., The Logic of Delegation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991)Google Scholar; McDonald, Jason A., “Limitation Riders and Congressional Influence over Bureaucratic Policy Decisions,” American Political Science Review 104, no. 4 (2010): 766–82Google Scholar. On presidential influence, see Howell, William, Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Howell, William and Lewis, David, “Agencies by Presidential Design,” Journal of Politics 64, no. 4 (2002): 1095–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elena Kagan, “Presidential Administration,” Harvard Law Review (2001): 2245–85; Whittington, Keith E. and Carpenter, Daniel P., “Executive Power in American Institutional Development,” Perspectives on Politics 1, no. 3 (2003): 495–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an expansive view of the appointment and removal power, see Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926) and Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 697 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). For a more constrained view, see Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) and Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988). More recently, see Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ____ (2020).

4 Carpenter, Daniel P., The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Carpenter, Daniel P., Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010)Google Scholar. On the Progressive Era, see also Stillman, Richard J., Creating the American State: The Moral Reformers and the Modern Administrative World They Made (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Spicer, Michael, “Public Administration, the History of Ideas, and the Reinventing Government Movement,” Public Administration Review 64, no. 3 (2004): 353–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Along with Carpenter, see Coppin, Clayton A. and High, Jack C., The Politics of Purity: Harvey Washington Wiley and the Origins of Federal Food Policy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Moore, Colin D., “State Building Through Partnership: Delegation, Public-Private Partnerships, and the Political Development of American Imperialism, 1898–1916,” Studies in American Political Development 25, no. 1 (2011): 27–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moore, Colin D., American Imperialism and the State, 1893–1921 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kelly, Andrew S., “The Political Development of Scientific Capacity in the United States,” Studies in American Political Development 28, no. 1 (2014): 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adler, William D., “State Capacity and Bureaucratic Autonomy in the Early United States: The Case of the Army Corps of Topographical Engineers,” Studies in American Political Development 26, no. 2 (2012): 108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Roberts, Patrick S., “FEMA and the Prospects for Reputation-Based Autonomy,” Studies in American Political Development 20, no. 1 (2006): 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 See, for example, Kernell, Samuel, “Rural Free Delivery as a Critical Test of Alternative Models of American Political Development,” Studies in American Political Development 15, no. 1 (2001): 103–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Zegart, Amy B., Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Zegart, Amy B., “September 11 and the Adaptation Failure of US Intelligence Agencies,” International Security 29, no. 4 (2005): 78–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zegart, Amy B., Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of 9/11 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Along with Zegart, the two main studies of the National Security Act are Hogan, Michael J., A Cross of Iron: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of the National Security State, 1945–1954 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stuart, Douglas T., Creating the National Security State: A History of the Law that Transformed America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

10 Effectiveness is also the primary theme in the discussion of the FBI in Wilson, James Q., Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It (New York: Basic Books, 1989)Google Scholar.

11 Individual bureaucrats are also marginal in Stuart, Creating the National Security State.

12 Roberts, Patrick S., “How Security Agencies Control Change: Executive Power and the Quest for Autonomy in the FBI and CIA,” Public Organization Review 9, no. 2 (2009): 170CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Roberts, “FEMA.”

13 Wilson, Mark R., “The Politics of Procurement: Military Origins of Bureaucratic Autonomy,” Journal of Policy History 18, no. 1 (2006): 44–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilson, Mark R., The Business of War: Military Mobilization and the State, 1861–1865 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Ellis, Mark, “J. Edgar Hoover and the ‘Red Summer’ of 1919,” Journal of American Studies 28, no. 1 (1994): 39–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Glennon, Michael J., National Security and Double Government (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016)Google Scholar.

14 Theoharis, Athan G., “FBI Wiretapping: A Case Study of Bureaucratic Autonomy,” Political Science Quarterly 107, no. 1 (1992): 101–22Google Scholar; Theoharis, Athan G., “The FBI's Stretching of Presidential Directives, 1936–1953.” Political Science Quarterly, 91, no. 4 (1976): 649–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frydl, Kathleen J., “Kidnapping and State Development in the United States,” Studies in American Political Development 20, no. 1 (2006): 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Theoharis's legal judgment on FBI wiretapping is challenged by Katyal, Neal and Caplan, Richard, “The Surprisingly Stronger Case for the Legality of the NSA Surveillance Program: The FDR Precedent,” Stanford Law Review 60 (2007): 102–56Google Scholar.

15 Ellis, “J. Edgar Hoover and the ‘Red Summer’”; Morgan, Ted, Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America (New York: Random House, 2003), 120Google Scholar; Potter, Claire Bond, War on Crime: Bandits, G-Men, and the Politics of Mass Culture (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Frydl, “Kidnapping and State Development”; Charles, Douglas M., “Informing FDR: FBI Political Surveillance and the Isolationist-Interventionist Foreign Policy Debate, 1939–1945,” Diplomatic History 24, no. 2 (2000): 211–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weiner, Tim, Enemies: A History of the FBI (New York: Random House, 2012), 126Google Scholar.

16 Truman, Harry S., Memoirs, Volume Two: Years of Trial and Hope (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1956), 57Google Scholar; Hogan, A Cross of Iron, 255.

17 C. Thomas Thorne and David S. Patterson, eds., Foreign Relations of the United States, 1945–1950: Emergence of the Intelligence Establishment (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1996) [hereinafter FRUS], Document 5; FRUS, Document 17. On intelligence during WWII, see Troy, Thomas F., Donovan and the CIA: A History of the Establishment of the Central Intelligence Agency (Frederick, MD: Aletheia Books, 1981)Google Scholar.

18 On the National Security Act as a “Magna Carta,” see Hogan, A Cross of Iron.

19 Conferences with President Truman, Papers of Harold Smith, Box 4, Roosevelt Library, September 5, 1945; Ibid., May 4, 1945; Ibid., July 6, 1945.

20 FRUS, Document 22.

21 FRUS, Document 10.

22 Presidential Directive on Coordination of Foreign Intelligence Activities, January 22, 1946, Washington, DC (approved for release by the Central Intelligence Agency, 2001).

23 See Howell, Power Without Persuasion. The first-move advantage does not necessarily give the president total free rein over foreign affairs. See Howell, William G. and Pevehouse, Jon C., While Dangers Gather: Congressional Checks on Presidential War Powers (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kriner, Douglas L., After the Rubicon: Congress, Presidents, and the Politics of Waging War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Polsky, Andrew J., Elusive Victories: The American Presidency at War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 FRUS, Document 19.

25 FRUS, Documents 100, 110.

26 Federal Bureau of Investigation, History of the Special Intelligence Service Division [of the FBI], pp. 4, 6, FBI Records: The Vault, declassified August 9, 2004, accessed January 16, 2020, https://vault.fbi.gov/special-intelligence-service (hereinafter FBI, History of the SIS).

27 FBI, History of the SIS, 43–44.

28 FRUS, Documents 11, 117.

29 FRUS, Documents 12, 42.

30 On the “O & C” system, see Theoharis, Athan, From the Secret Files of J. Edgar Hoover (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1993)Google Scholar.

31 See Gentry, J. Edgar Hoover, 133–48; Troy, Donovan and the CIA, 84

32 FRUS, Document 8.

33 Troy, Donovan and the CIA, 287–301.

34 FRUS, Document 3.

35 Ibid., Document 35.

36 Troy, Donovan and the CIA, 325–27, 330.

37 Gentry, J. Edgar Hoover.

38 Sidney Souers, Memorandum for Commander Clifford, December 27, 1945 (declassified and approved for release by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2001). https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/5166d49399326091c6a604ce.

39 Troy, Donovan and the CIA, 340.

40 FRUS, Document 5.

41 See FRUS, Document 1, from the Assistant Counsel to the Secretary of State on the legality of an agency created by decree.

42 Conferences with President Truman, Papers of Harold Smith, Box 4, Roosevelt Library, May 4, 1945; FRUS, Document 22.

43 FRUS, Document 17.

44 Ibid., Document 35; Smith quoted in Troy, Donovan and the CIA, 330; Donovan quoted in Troy, Donovan and the CIA, 285.

45 The President's Special Conference with the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 18, 1946, Harry S. Truman Presidential Library, accessed February 2021, https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/86/presidents-special-conference-american-society-newspaper-editors; Harry–Bess letter quoted in Gentry, J. Edgar Hoover, 319; Clifford quoted in Hogan, A Cross of Iron, 255.

46 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, National Security Act of 1947: Hearing Before the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, Eightieth Congress, First Session, on H.R. 2319, June 27, 1947 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1982), 127, 6, 62.

47 Barrett, David M., The CIA and Congress: The Untold Story from Truman to Kennedy (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005), 9–24Google Scholar; U.S. Congress, Report of the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack Pursuant to S. Con. Res. 27, 79th Congress, a Concurrent Resolution to Investigate the Attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and Events and Circumstances Relating Thereto (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1946).

48 For an extended discussion, see Khong, Yuen Foong, Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Greenwald, Glenn, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the US Surveillance State (New York: Macmillan, 2014)Google Scholar.

50 Glenn Greenwald, “The Same Democrats Who Denounce Donald Trump as a Lawless, Treasonous Authoritarian Just Voted to Give Him Vast Warrantless Spying Powers,” The Intercept, January 12, 2018.

51 Khong strongly implies this about Lyndon Johnson in Analogies at War.