The covert operation used to spirit President Donald Trump out of Turkey may have been a justified response to a credible Iranian assassination threat.
But the president’s public comments afterward—and his administration’s reported pursuit of journalists who exposed security concerns—have transformed a successful protective maneuver into what one national-security expert called a “clown show.”
Michael Feinberg, a former FBI official and contributor to Lawfare, delivered that blunt assessment during an MS NOW panel examining the extraordinary flight and the Justice Department subpoenas reportedly issued to New York Times journalists.
“The whole national security apparatus of the United States right now is, frankly, a clown show,” Feinberg said.
The controversy began with an elaborate security operation following a NATO summit in Ankara in July.
Trump publicly boarded one of the traditional presidential Boeing 747s, but was later removed without the press corps or some White House staff members realizing it. According to reporting by The Washington Post, the president and several aides exited through a door on the opposite side of the aircraft and entered an elevated airport catering vehicle.
The container was lowered to the tarmac and driven to a smaller Air Force C-32A, where Trump secretly boarded for the flight out of Turkey.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly joined him using exterior stairs, apparently to make the smaller aircraft’s departure look routine.
Meanwhile, journalists and White House personnel flew aboard the larger plane they believed was carrying the president. That aircraft effectively operated as a decoy, drawing attention away from Trump’s actual location.
Reports indicate the plan was triggered by intelligence concerning a possible Iranian attempt to target the president’s aircraft.
Feinberg acknowledged that the threat could have justified the extraordinary precautions.
Using misdirection to protect a president facing a credible assassination plot is not inherently reckless. The Secret Service and military are responsible for altering routes, concealing movements and withholding information—even from members of the traveling party—when operational security requires it.
The problem, Feinberg argued, was what happened after the covert mission.
Once Trump rejoined the press corps, reporters asked why they had been told to lower their window shades before departing Turkey. The instruction now appears to have helped conceal the catering truck used to transfer the president.
Trump gave a rambling answer about the dangers posed by “sleazebags,” then told the journalists, “If I go, you go.”
The remark sounded like swagger at the time. It became far stranger after reporters learned Trump had not been aboard their flight at all.
Feinberg condemned what he described as the “ham-fisted way” Trump joined the press pool and began “mouthing off” rather than preserving the disciplined silence expected after a sensitive national-security operation.
He accused Trump of speaking in a “narcissistic” way that presented the entire episode as another story revolving exclusively around him.
“There’s just an element of maturity and sobriety that every other president in the history of the United States has had that he lacks,” Feinberg said.
Those remarks are Feinberg’s sharply worded opinion, not an official assessment of the operation. But they point to a broader contradiction: The government carried out an intricate deception requiring secrecy, coordination and discipline, only for the president’s own comments to invite questions about what happened.
The controversy became more serious with reports that the Justice Department subpoenaed New York Times journalists after the newspaper published information about possible security vulnerabilities involving the $400 million Boeing 747-8 provided by Qatar for presidential use.
News organizations have reported that the newer aircraft may not yet possess every defensive capability available on the older presidential jets, including mature countermeasures designed to protect against incoming missiles.
The administration has insisted that the Qatari-provided aircraft is safe and equipped with advanced security technology.
Feinberg said the decoy-flight revelation now “complicates every discussion” surrounding the subpoenas.
If classified information was unlawfully disclosed and created a genuine threat to national security, he acknowledged, the government could have a legitimate basis to investigate the leak.
But the available public record has not established whether the subpoenas were driven by an authentic security breach or by Trump’s anger over embarrassing reporting.
“As far as we know, these subpoenas were still issued just because the White House got embarrassed at the New York Times reporting,” Feinberg said.
He also referenced reports that Trump summoned FBI Director Kash Patel to the White House and pushed for action.
The timing, Feinberg argued, “does look suspicious.”
Investigating a classified-information leak and retaliating against journalists for exposing government failures are profoundly different actions. The first may protect legitimate national-security interests. The second could threaten press freedom and allow presidential embarrassment to dictate federal law enforcement.
Subpoenas targeting reporters are supposed to face heightened scrutiny because they can expose confidential sources and deter whistleblowers from revealing misconduct. The government must balance its interest in protecting secrets against the First Amendment role of a free press.
The precise scope and legal basis of the reported subpoenas have not been fully disclosed, making it impossible to determine from public information whether they were justified.
That uncertainty is central to Feinberg’s criticism.
The decoy operation itself may have been prudent. But the administration’s contradictory explanations, Trump’s careless remarks and the subsequent targeting of journalists have made rational analysis increasingly difficult.
“If I was a reporter in his press pool,” Feinberg concluded, “I wouldn’t be giving any credence to a single word that comes out of his mouth.”
Trump’s security team may have executed a sophisticated maneuver to confuse a potential assassin.
The administration’s next moves, however, left journalists and experts wondering who else was being deceived.
