Listen to the article
Dick Cheney’s complex legacy continues to shape American national security policies, from surveillance programs to the ongoing debate over executive power in counterterrorism efforts.
As the public face of the George W. Bush administration’s approach to intelligence collection following the September 11 attacks, Cheney advocated for expansive executive authority in the name of national security. His influence remains evident in today’s security apparatus, despite evolving political attitudes toward government surveillance.
“I do think the security state that we have today is very much a product of our reaction to Sept. 11, and obviously Vice President Cheney was right smack-dab in the middle of how that reaction was operationalized from the White House,” said Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor.
Cheney emerged as perhaps the most vocal supporter of the Patriot Act, legislation passed nearly unanimously after 9/11 that dramatically expanded government surveillance powers. He also championed a controversial National Security Agency program for warrantless wiretapping of international communications involving suspected terrorists on American soil, despite legal concerns.
Cheney once claimed that had such surveillance capabilities existed before September 11, authorities might have identified “two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon.”
The political landscape surrounding surveillance has shifted significantly in recent years. The bipartisan consensus that once supported these programs has fractured, particularly among Republicans who believe intelligence agencies misused their authority during investigations into ties between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.
This changing attitude led Congress in 2020 to allow three provisions of the Patriot Act to expire, including one that permitted surveillance of subjects without establishing their connection to international terrorist organizations. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was reauthorized last year, but only after contentious negotiations.
“I think for someone like Vice President Cheney, expanding those authorities wasn’t an incidental objective — it was a core objective,” Vladeck noted. “And I think the Republican Party today does not view those kinds of issues — counterterrorism policy, government surveillance authorities — as anywhere near the kind of political issues that the Bush administration did.”
Cheney’s role in the lead-up to the Iraq War has become another controversial aspect of his legacy. As a key architect of both the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, he pushed intelligence agencies to find evidence justifying military action. The administration’s claims that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and maintained ties to al-Qaida—assertions later debunked—are now viewed as a textbook example of intelligence being manipulated for political purposes.
This intelligence failure has fueled lasting public skepticism toward government claims about national security threats. Many lawmakers who supported the 2003 authorization for the use of military force have since expressed regret. Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) reflected on the war’s 20th anniversary, saying, “It was a mistake to rely upon the Bush administration for telling the truth.”
Despite Donald Trump’s frequent criticism of Cheney, his administration has embraced legal doctrines popularized during the Bush-Cheney years to justify military actions, particularly regarding recent strikes against alleged drug-running vessels in Latin America. The current administration has declared cartels “unlawful combatants” in an “armed conflict,” language reminiscent of post-9/11 policies.
“These narco-terrorists have killed more Americans than Al-Qaeda, and they will be treated the same,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated on social media in late October. “We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them.”
Jim Ludes, former national security analyst and current director of the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy at Salve Regina University, sees parallels between Cheney’s approach and current policies. “You think about his legacy and some of it is very troubling. Some of it is maybe what the moment demanded,” Ludes said. “But it’s a complicated legacy.”
The organizational structure of America’s security apparatus also bears Cheney’s imprint. During his vice presidency, both the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence were established. Similar to debates during the Bush-Cheney era, disagreements continue today about the proper division of responsibilities among security agencies.
A recent dispute has emerged between FBI Director Kash Patel and intelligence agencies overseen by Tulsi Gabbard, with the FBI objecting to a legislative proposal that would diminish its role as the government’s lead counterintelligence agency in favor of a center under Gabbard’s office.
As American security policies continue to evolve, Cheney’s influence remains evident—a testament to his significant, if controversial, impact on how the nation approaches threats in the post-9/11 world.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
Cheney’s role in shaping post-9/11 security policies is certainly a complex and controversial topic. While some argue he went too far in expanding surveillance powers, others saw it as necessary to protect the country. There are valid concerns around balancing security and civil liberties.
The lasting impact of Cheney’s actions during his time as Vice President is still felt today. The debate around balancing national security and civil liberties remains highly charged, with reasonable people holding different views on the appropriate scope of government surveillance.
Cheney’s role in shaping post-9/11 security policies is a contentious topic. While some praise his efforts to protect the country, others are concerned about the expansion of government surveillance powers. It’s a nuanced debate with valid arguments on both sides.
The Patriot Act was highly divisive, but it’s clear Cheney was a key advocate. Reasonable people can disagree on whether the benefits outweighed the privacy concerns. It’s an enduring debate that continues to shape today’s security landscape.
You raise a good point. The trade-offs between security and individual rights are not always clear-cut. Evaluating Cheney’s legacy requires carefully considering multiple perspectives.
Regardless of one’s views on Cheney, it’s undeniable that his influence during the post-9/11 era was substantial. The ongoing discussion around the appropriate scope of government surveillance powers is a complex issue that continues to evolve.
Cheney’s influence on post-9/11 security policies is undeniable, but the debate around the appropriate scope of government surveillance powers remains highly contentious. Reasonable people can hold different views on this complex and evolving issue.
Cheney’s advocacy for expanded government surveillance powers in the name of national security is a complex legacy. Reasonable people can disagree on whether the benefits outweighed the privacy concerns, but the debate continues to shape today’s security landscape.
You make a fair point. The trade-offs between security and civil liberties are not always clear-cut, and evaluating Cheney’s role requires carefully considering multiple perspectives on this nuanced issue.
While Cheney’s actions as Vice President shaped the post-9/11 security landscape, the ongoing discussion around balancing national security and civil liberties is far from settled. It’s a nuanced debate that continues to evolve as society grapples with these challenges.