152

Julia Curlee briefed presidents and became the White House’s senior career intelligence official. Then a far-right campaign targeted her for being transgender.

Julia Curlee spent nearly two decades carrying the country’s secrets.

She worked in war zones, traveled to 35 countries, briefed presidents, and boarded Air Force One with the President’s Daily Brief. She was trusted to decide what some of the world's most powerful people needed to know before beginning their days.

But in a remarkable first-person account published Monday by The Atlantic, Curlee describes how the second Trump administration came to view something else as dangerously sensitive: the fact that one of its most experienced intelligence officials was a transgender woman.

Her identity was never a secret inside the government. Trump officials had known about it during his first term, when Curlee briefed senior White House officials and became Vice President Mike Pence’s daily intelligence briefer. It became intolerable, she writes, only when the public might learn about it.

“The White House had needed me,” Curlee writes. “Trump officials had known I was trans from day one.”

Curlee joined the CIA in 2007 and became the first officer at the agency to transition openly and continue serving. She had dreamed of becoming an intelligence officer since childhood. Her other lifelong conviction — that she should have been born a woman — seemed, for years, incompatible with that calling.

She transitioned in 2013. Her first day at work as Julia passed without incident. Four years later, she wrote about the experience in The Atlantic under the pseudonym Jenny Hall, explaining how living openly had made her a more effective intelligence officer. The CIA later used the essay in college recruiting, according to Curlee.

Then came an assignment to prepare and deliver the President’s Daily Brief during Trump’s first administration. The work required arriving around midnight, studying intelligence through the early morning, and entering the West Wing before dawn.

Curlee eventually became Pence’s briefer. It was an unlikely pairing. Pence had spent years opposing marriage equality and LGBTQ+ rights. Curlee was a gay transgender woman, a wife, and a mother.

Yet Pence, she says, treated her as a trusted professional. He took notes, asked questions, and invited Curlee’s family to the White House when her assignment ended. There, he took her mother’s hand and said, “You must be very proud of your daughter.”

For Curlee, the moment proved that public service could rise above politics. She could serve an administration whose policies she opposed, and its leaders could recognize her expertise and humanity.

That belief brought her back to the White House under President Joe Biden, where she served as a National Security Council director. It also persuaded her to remain when Trump returned to office in January 2025.

As Biden’s political appointees departed, Curlee became the senior career intelligence official in the White House. She helped prepare the incoming administration to assume power, even as colleagues warned that she could become a target.

On Trump’s first day back in office, he signed an executive order directing the federal government to recognize only two sexes. Curlee began leaving the White House complex and crossing Pennsylvania Avenue to use restrooms in nearby coffee shops.

She stayed.

Three days into the administration, roughly 160 National Security Council employees detailed from other agencies were abruptly ordered to leave the White House. Curlee was spared. She assembled what remained of her team and continued briefing officials.

The arrangement lasted 69 days.

Curlee was visiting family in Roanoke, Virginia, when she received a Saturday phone call telling her that her White House assignment had ended. She said that officials did not explain. In the same conversation, they asked her to return Monday because they still needed her work.

After hanging up, Curlee saw that far-right provocateur Laura Loomer had posted about a transgender person “Biden holdover” inside the White House, accused the unnamed official of hating Trump, and asked her followers to help identify the person.

Curlee returned to work anyway. She spent three more days completing a budget project and transferring the portfolio she had managed for nearly two years.

“We need you. We need your service. But we don’t want anyone to know you are here,” she writes of the message she received.

Curlee does not claim to have proof that Trump or Loomer personally ordered her removal because she is transgender. She was never given a reason. But her account leaves little ambiguity about the sequence: Her identity had been known and accepted while her work remained useful and private. Once it threatened to become public, her service no longer protected her.

Days later, Trump fired several other National Security Council officials after meeting with Loomer, who had urged him to purge officials she considered insufficiently loyal.

Curlee returned to the CIA. There, she watched the agency dismantle its LGBTQ+ employee organization, remove Pride flags, and impose the administration’s restrictions on transgender workers. Earlier this year, she finally left the career she had once expected to hold for life.

In an accompanying Radio Atlantic interview, Curlee delivered a painful reversal of the message she once offered LGBTQ+ young people.

“Now I could not in good conscience advise any LGBT American to apply to work at CIA,” she said.

🗃️

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago

Should climate scientists just quit then because Trump doesn't like what they're telling him about clean coal?

[-] djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago

Why just quit, they can flee to a country that still cares about climate science and continue working on important research. The US isn't going to produce anything worthwhile in that field for at least two more years, the only studies they'll fund are ones that say coal, oil and natural gas are good for the environment.

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

You’re acting like that’s so easy.

I sympathize with the notion, but quitting one's living is scary, especially if they have people To support. Immigrating somewhere else, finding a place that will take you, uprooting your whole life, is hard.

[-] traxex@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago

Actual insane argument. How the fuck do people think its so easy to just uproot and move like that. That is a major life choice and can be insanely hard and stressful.

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

It's easy to argue from a chair.

...But yeah. The internet is littered with stories of academics who did just this, and how insanely hard it was for them. And the ones who write articles in major newspapers are the ones who sucessfully transitioned.

[-] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

they can flee to a country that still cares about climate science and continue working on important research

Research funding doesn't just pop up that quickly.

The US isn’t going to produce anything worthwhile in that field for at least two more years

The currently employed climate scientists would disagree.

the only studies they’ll fund are ones that say coal, oil and natural gas are good for the environment

They're still funding climate studies. Republicans are still trying to gut them.

[-] Smaile@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yes, leave the country to for a place that will accept them and their talents. Let the cespit rot and guard a socity that accepts you and is worth fighting for. America isn't the only place on earth hiring people like this.

[-] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 month ago

Yes, leave the country to for a place that will accept them and their talents. Let the cespit rot and guard a socity that accepts you and is worth fighting for. America isn’t the only place on earth hiring people like this.

No country or continent would have the resources to just accept all those climate scientists. And just letting people rot is not amongst their nature.

[-] Pelicanen@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago

No country or continent would have the resources to just accept all those climate scientists.

Just how many climate scientists do you think there are in the US?

[-] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago
[-] Pelicanen@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago

Why would a few thousand scientists be impossible for an entire continent to accommodate?

[-] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

Research funding does not shift that quickly. I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure most of Europe's funding has already been assigned to scientists for a year or two. They'd be able to expand their funding to grab up a few hundred of the best scientists. Corporate positions would be able to cycle through for the best ones as well. And Europe has it's own funding priorities already, even though I assume the whole continent appreciates scientific research. I think it's reasonable to assume they were already spending what they could on research.

The general feeling I'm getting reading the news is that Trump is rat fucking our scientific research for a decade, because even with a committed administration it will probably take that long to rebuild what we have lost. I'm not seeing how Europe could perform better when they're already more pro-science than us.

[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago

Maybe. Do they consider the administration’s position a personal attack? Then yes.

[-] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

It seems to me that any employee could fall under this logic given that every CEO has a interest in automating away their entire work force.

[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

I didn’t know that CEOs could draft executive orders

[-] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago

A CEO can draft discriminatory policies which take immediate effect and it's up to employees to ask a judge to stop them.

[-] alapakala@quokk.au 1 points 1 month ago

Quite the capitalist approach, when a CIA can just assassinate CEOs and classify their actions.

[-] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

A CEO could also pay for assassinations and classify their actions

[-] alapakala@quokk.au 1 points 1 month ago

But the CIA has clearance, C👔 have to lobby.
Glad you can demonstrate conservative values.

[-] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

The CIA doesn't have clearance to perform illegal actions. Neither does a CEO.

[-] alapakala@quokk.au 1 points 1 month ago

Ok, last disinfo strike.

I hereby request permission to disengage.

[-] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

From your linked article:

American citizens working for al Qaeda overseas can legally be targeted and killed by the CIA under President Bush's rules for the war on terrorism, U.S. officials say.

The authority to kill U.S. citizens is granted under a secret finding signed by the president after the Sept. 11 attacks that directs the CIA to covertly attack al Qaeda anywhere in the world.

Seems like the CIA can legally kill you if you work for Al Qaeda

[-] alapakala@quokk.au 1 points 1 month ago

under President Bush’s rules for the war

Not under Congressional rules, not American people’s permission.

Disengage.

[-] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

The American People voted in their Congress. Congress gave permission to kill Al-Qaeda. And the drone strike falls under a lawful act of war against an enemy of the United States.

[-] alapakala@quokk.au 1 points 1 month ago

Non sequitur.

Should a spy spy?

[-] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 month ago
[-] alapakala@quokk.au 1 points 1 month ago

Enjoy the consequences of spying without consent.

[-] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

I do not understand what the consequences are in this context?

[-] alapakala@quokk.au 1 points 1 month ago
[-] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

Yes I do.

What are the consequences in this context?

[-] alapakala@quokk.au 0 points 1 month ago

As a burned spy, she will not be allowed to have consent when she gets spied on, by all 6 groups: The CIA, Trump, Congress, USJ, foreign spies, and now the public. This is the consequence of espionage: your private life is over. It is now a complete public life.
Enjoy the consequences.
her very own truman show

[-] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

The CIA isn't spying on her unless she's making contact with foreigners the CIA is interested in. Trump doesn't give a shit about her. Congress isn't spying on people. What is USJ? Foreign Spies spying on us is a given, nothing we can do about that. I'm contesting the public spying on her given she publicly gave an interview, and has a public profile.

[-] remon@ani.social 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If your specific job is to advise Trump about climate science ... might as well, yeah. That's just a waste of time.

this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2026
152 points (93.2% liked)

LeopardsAteMyFace

944 readers
44 users here now

'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS