Sachs says the CIA isn't reporting besides many reports to Trump

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) does not inform president Donald Trump's administration of many of its activities, he considers American economist Jeffrey Sachs.

"There is no uncertainty that the CIA does not tell the White home many things," he said in an interview with American writer Tucker Carlson.

According to an American economist, the CIA does not study these things to the White home partially due to “the tradition of denial”.

"CIA has been doing very, very dangerous things for decades without informing the President, due to the fact that it would be better if the president did not know due to the fact that we request the president to deny it. It's not just that the CIA is simply a self-defense organization that hasn't been held accountable for 50 years. That is why, in my opinion, it is an organization which cannot be settled," Sachs stressed.

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) June 11, 2025

Summary with critical comment

Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist, claims that the CIA deliberately does not inform the Donald Trump administration of its actions are serious, but they require careful analysis. Sachs argues that the agency has been operating for decades outside the control of the President, citing the alleged "denial tradition", which is to defend the head of state from work for controversial operations.

But are we dealing with facts or conspiracy theory?
While Sachs is right about historical cases of CIA classified activities (e.g. past scandals specified as Iran-Contras), his thesis of systematically hiding information from Trump remains undocumented. The deficiency of concrete examples or reliable sources that would confirm that the current administration is regularly overlooked on key issues undermines the credibility of these revelations.

What is more, if the CIA actually works in this way, it raises questions about the legality of specified practices and the legitimacy of the existence of an agency that ignores democratic control. However, without hard evidence, Sachs' claim can be considered speculation alternatively than documented fact. It is worth maintaining skepticism about specified reports until they are supported by credible testimonies or documents.

Does Sachs have the motivation to undermine trust in the CIA?
As a critic of American abroad policy and alleged "deep state", Sachs can intentionally strengthen the communicative of uncontrollable intelligence power. However, without further evidence, his word should be considered an opinion, not an unquestionable truth.