President Trump persists in raising questions about the U.S. election system. Geoff Bennett interviewed Sue Gordon, who dedicated 30 years to the intelligence field and acted as principal deputy director of national intelligence in the first Trump term as the top career official then.

Note: Transcripts combine machine and human input with light edits for precision. Errors may occur.

Geoff Bennett:

For added context we speak with Sue Gordon. She devoted 30 years to intelligence work and held the role of principal deputy director of national intelligence in President Trump's opening term as the senior career official then.

Sue Gordon, welcome again to the News Hour.

Sue Gordon, Former U.S. Principal Deputy of National Intelligence: Thank you. Happy to join.

Geoff Bennett:

The president in his address last night stressed China and what he called fresh intelligence on the 2020 vote. From what is public, did anything alter the intelligence community's core view of 2020 events?

Sue Gordon:

No, for three reasons.

First, China and other states seeking to sway our elections for their goals is familiar. We have tracked it closely since 2016. Their drive for gain this way is expected.

Nothing I saw or heard was unexpected. Also, intelligence starts a longer effort. It shows only intent. Much distance remains from fresh data on Chinese aims to proof of action, effect, or result.

Thus 2020 stands as resolved. Nothing here shifts that. Beyond intent assessments we reviewed the full election and found it secure with no sign of effect.

Geoff Bennett:

The president also implied that intelligence on China was somehow blocked or hidden from him.

Sue Gordon:

Yes.

Geoff Bennett:

You served as principal deputy director of national intelligence in his first term. How likely is it that key intelligence would be purposely kept from the president?

Sue Gordon:

Recall I come from that community and trust those who commit to the Constitution, yet it makes little sense.

First, return to 2016 when the intelligence community loudly warned of Russian plans to sway elections at the start of the first Trump term. Since then it has been a major focus.

Also, when President Trump speaks of personal harm, intelligence examines acts meant to weaken our nation and democracy.

The notion that those who work to protect America and its democracy would hide foreign efforts against the same is flawed.

Consider 2016 and the effort spent even when President Trump showed less interest then.

Geoff Bennett:

Is there an unfortunate irony that by often claiming American elections face compromise the president aids goals long sought by nations like Russia and China?

Sue Gordon:

Yes, fully.

I believe I noted this to President Trump in the first term and repeat it now. Democracy's core deal allows anyone to seek office with all accepting the result. Actions that erode this trust serve our rivals.

They need no actual impact if we grow doubtful of our core values. The biggest risk to America is losing faith in ourselves. When the president spreads this misplaced doubt in our systems he advances that aim.

Geoff Bennett:

One confusion for viewers is the mix of real China threats with unsupported claims. How do we tell apart valid worries on foreign influence and cyber risks from baseless assertions of corrupted results?

Sue Gordon:

Yes, a strong point.

The intelligence community may use complex terms yet it clearly shows adversary work to sway campaigns via candidate support, funding, and data to shape voter views.

That is influence: real, active, and tough to stop as it uses democracy's own paths.

Interference means direct harm like flipping votes from one candidate to another. That is far harder. Since 2016 much effort has secured the process.

Our local election structure adds strength. Systemic change that matters is very unlikely though vigilance stays key.

Right now the line between influence on views and interference with outcomes remains clear in our findings.

Geoff Bennett:

Sue Gordon, always a pleasure. Thank you for joining.

Sue Gordon:

Certainly. Good to see you.