As the United States prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday, it finds itself bitterly divided, in large part thanks to an institution that exists to protect it – intelligence. For nearly a decade, Democrats and Republicans have battled over competing allegations of collusion with a foreign power, a political conspiracy in the White House, and the weaponisation of intelligence. Each side frames its position as a patriotic stand to defend democracy. Each side claims that the other subverted the Constitution. Each side insists it is protecting the American people from a nefarious conspiracy. And each side claims the situation is ‘unprecedented.’

As a historian of American intelligence, I’ve studied nearly every political intelligence scandal in the nation’s past. The lesson is clear: when politics and intelligence mix, no one wins – not the parties, not the public, and certainly not the country. Crucially, today’s politicisation of intelligence  is not unprecedented, as the early years of the United States’ history show – it’s practically foundational. The continuing controversy over the 2016 presidential campaign is the latest episode in a long, damaging tradition. Today’s bitter fight over the Russian collusion controversy echoes some of the earliest political scandals in the United States, when intelligence, foreign intrigue, and partisan rivalry nearly tore the young nation apart.

Allegations of collusion with a foreign state and conspiracy within the US government are as old as the country itself. In fact, intelligence controversies like the current one divided the United States at its birth an helped create the two-party system of government it has today. And, just as the Democrats and Republicans are wielding intelligence against each other today, the first two political parties did the same thing.

Many Americans remember George Washington’s Farewell Address for its warning against foreign entanglements. Washington offered this warning because of political divisions during his presidency, when the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party waged a vicious partisan war against each other over the future direction of American foreign policy. The Federalists wanted to re-establish relations with Britain, while the Democratic-Republicans thought the country should remain aligned with France, its erstwhile ally during the Revolutionary War. Both sides claimed there was foreign interference in American affairs and accused the other of collusion.

Washington declared US neutrality after France and Britain went to war in 1793, but later sent John Jay to negotiate a treaty with Britain. During the negotiations, a scandal erupted when the British seized a ship and intercepted letters from Joseph Fauchet, the French Minister to the United States, that implicated Secretary of State Edmund Randolph in a conspiracy to use French secret-service money to sway the United States politically. Fauchet allegedly had intelligence about British activities in the United States, while Randolph suspected the British were plotting to incite a revolt in the western states and territories. Washington confronted Randolph with Fauchet’s letters, and Randolph resigned. Immediately after the scandal, Washington signed the Jay Treaty with Britain, which infuriated the Democratic-Republicans.

In response, the Democratic-Republicans accused Washington himself – the same man who led America in its war for independence – of conspiring with the British against the United States. Benjamin Franklin Bache, the editor of the Aurora General Advertiser and grandson of Benjamin Franklin, claimed he had evidence that Washington and his Cabinet had formed a ‘nefarious conspiracy’ against American liberty. The constant attacks and accusations were apparently enough to convince Washington to retire rather than seek a third term in office because he wrote to Vice President John Adams that he would not run for a third presidential term as he was ‘disinclined to be longer buffeted in the public prints by a set of infamous scribblers’.

Allegations of conspiracy and collusion then plagued the 1796 presidential election. Writing in the pro-Federalist Columbian Centinel to advocate for the candidacy of John Adams as president, an author going by the pen-name ‘Aurelius’, later identified as John Gardner, claimed ‘there is in this country a nefarious conspiracy, not only against the distinguished characters at the head of the federal government, but against the constitution itself. How far it has been instigated by the secret service money of any of the powers at war, is not for me to say… Foreign influence is an excellent assistant to ambition…’

The political divisions only deepened after Adams won the election, and the United States engaged in the ‘Quasi-War’ with France beginning in 1798. The Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which they used to jail Democratic-Republican politicians and journalists, based on allegations that there were French spies and saboteurs operating in the United States. They also insisted that they had discovered several French plots against the country. In what was the most sensational story, they claimed they had received an intelligence tip from a US consul in Europe that the French were planning to incite a slave revolt in the United States. The Democratic-Republicans dismissed each plot as Federalist propaganda or, as we might say today, fake news.

The Democratic-Republicans levelled their own accusations at the Federalists. Vice President Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, believed that he was being watched by Federalist spies, a claim also previously made by James Monroe, who had served as US Minister to France before Washington recalled him. William Duane, who took over the Aurora after Bache died in jail following his arrest under the Sedition Act, claimed the British secret service had spent $800,000 to influence American foreign policy by bribing Adams and other Federalists. Notably, there is little evidence that any of the allegations that the Federalists or Democratic-Republicans lobbed against each other were ever true.

Many parts of this story probably sound familiar to contemporary Americans and much of the world along with them, who know the post-2016 accusations all too well. The Obama administration accused the Trump campaign of colluding with Russia, partly based on the notorious Steele dossier. It was a collection of hearsay and rumours collected by a former British spy and sold to American politicians to use against their political rivals. They were much like the papers John Henry sold to the Monroe administration, which it used against the Federalist Party in 1812.

The Steele dossier, paid for by the Clinton campaign, was opposition research rather than a vetted intelligence product, and it was sourced through questionable Russian contacts. Recently declassified documents, including handwritten notes by then-CIA director John Brennan, strongly suggest that senior Obama administration officials knew the Steele dossier was based on unverified information and even had intelligence – collected from Russia no less – indicating that the Steele dossier and accusations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia were going to be used by the Clinton campaign as election strategies.

Like Jefferson and Monroe before him, Trump and his allies accused the Obama administration of spying on him. To be fair, the FBI misused its surveillance powers, and senior intelligence officials made politically charged statements that undermined the credibility of the investigation into the Trump-Russia collusion allegation.

Trump also claimed there was a conspiracy within the intelligence community or ‘Deep State’, one bent on subverting his presidency. Ahead of the 2020 election, former intelligence officials signed a public letter suggesting that the Hunter Biden laptop story could be a Russian intelligence operation. The letter even referenced ‘the founding fathers’ concern about the damage that foreign interference in our politics can do to our democracy’, although the same Founders were equally emphatic in warning about the dangers of partisan politics. It turns out the laptop was genuine, and the letter itself became the basis for a partisan dispute over politicised intelligence.

Unfortunately, turnabout is fair play in American politics. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, is claiming that the Obama administration engaged in a ‘treasonous conspiracy’ against then President-elect Trump in 2016. The Republicans are arguing that the Obama administration politicised and weaponised intelligence, but the Democrats are saying the same thing about the Trump administration.

Like the allegations made by the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans before them, the Republicans and Democrats will have a hard time proving there has been any conspiracy or collusion, and probably never will. Then again, American history offers another painful lesson: the accusation alone is often more powerful – and more damaging – than the reality. This is why the public needs to be much more wary of allegations based on intelligence. After all, it’s secret. That means most of the documents, assessments, and judgments at the heart of these controversies are redacted, classified, and open to interpretation, or worse, manipulation.

Much of the current debate is based on different interpretations of the same intelligence assessments and reports. For example, a Senate report that detailed contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Russia also concluded there was no collusion between them. Each side used the report to claim victory and vindication. Meanwhile, a House report led by Republicans argued that the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election was politicised and biased. Democrats dismiss that report as biased in return.

Both sides are cherry-picking and politicising intelligence to support their narrative. Declassifying or interpreting intelligence selectively to score political points is not transparency – it’s propaganda by another name. Furthermore, no report, declassified memo, or indictment will ever end the debate. Of course, constitutional states shouldn’t ignore misconduct or crimes at the highest levels of government, but politicising, cherry-picking, or misusing intelligence are not, in and of themselves, crimes. Furthermore, proving that there has been a criminal conspiracy is incredibly difficult, especially when it is based on secret intelligence.

Ultimately, the public must distinguish between real oversight and accountability as opposed to partisan accusations and endless recrimination. Intelligence, by nature, is murky. Politics, by design, is messy. Expecting any clarity or closure through their combination is just fantasy. Instead of separating the two, the American people have divided themselves along party lines. The poll numbers are alarming: one poll suggested nearly half of Americans think the Trump campaign colluded with Russia while another revealed that just as many believe there is an American ‘Deep State’. Meanwhile, across the board, Americans think democracy is under threat and public trust in the US government is at historical lows.

The sad irony is this is exactly what Russia, and other adversaries of America and democracy, want. The 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment concluded that one of Russia’s primary goals in interfering with the 2016 election was to ‘undermine public faith in the US democratic process’. It succeeded – not because Russian intelligence was effective, but because Americans did the dirty work for it by turning against each other, distrusting their own institutions, and demonising their political rivals as traitors.

George Washington warned his fellow citizens about this, too. In an overlooked passage in his Farewell Address, he urged future generations to resist the ‘mischiefs of foreign intrigue’, ‘the fury of party spirit’, and ‘the impostures of pretended patriotism’. As the United States nears its semiquincentennial, it should learn from its first president and founding era. The best 250th birthday gift the Republicans and Democrats could give their country is not another investigation, but a celebration. This can only be achieved by putting national unity over party politics. The real scandal in American politics right now is not a conspiracy or collusion – it’s the constant habit of making the same mistakes as the United States’ first generation of political leaders.