Which specific emails and cables before September 11, 2012, warned about security in Benghazi, and how were they handled by State Department officials?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A tranche of cables and emails from 2011–mid‑2012—including reports authored or routed by Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, cables from Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom in March and July 2012, contractor warnings from Blue Mountain in late June 2012, and numerous intelligence reports—noted a deteriorating security environment in and around Benghazi; many of those messages either received no affirmative response, were routed into bureaucratic review, or resulted in constrained changes rather than increased force protection before the September 11, 2012 attack [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The specific cables and emails that raised alarms
Ambassador Stevens’ correspondence and cables from 2011 through 2012 included repeated references to “growing problems with security,” alarms about Islamist militias and al‑Qaeda training in eastern Libya, and at least one publicly noted July 9, 2012 cable seeking additional security that was long on record with congressional investigators [1] [5]. State Department Diplomatic Security records and testimony show Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer, sent at least two formal cables—one in March 2012 and another in July 2012—explicitly requesting additional Diplomatic Security agents for Benghazi and citing hundreds of prior incidents that signaled elevated risk [2]. Private contractor Blue Mountain, which provided local guards, sent warnings in late June 2012 reporting mass attrition of local guards and specific failures that left the mission vulnerable [3].
2. Intelligence community and congressional summaries of those warnings
Multiple official reviews and intelligence summaries concluded the U.S. government received “ample strategic warnings” and “numerous intelligence reports” documenting a deteriorating environment in eastern Libya in the months before the attack, with the Senate Intelligence Committee and later congressional reports explicitly citing a pattern of warnings and security shortfalls [4] [6] [7]. The Accountability Review Board later characterized security shortcomings as systemic and consistent with the documentary record of prior warnings [8] [9].
3. How State Department officials handled the requests and warnings
Testimony and contemporaneous memos indicate multiple outcomes: some formal requests for additional Diplomatic Security agents received no substantive affirmative replies, deployment levels were often below internally recommended numbers, and senior bureau officials resisted expanding permanent security footprints—an approach captured in Nordstrom’s account that he “received no responses” to his March and July cables and that certain officials preferred to keep the post’s security “artificially low” [2]. The State Department later produced thousands of pages of Stevens’ emails to congressional committees, which oversight staff said confirmed the existence of those warnings even as State spokesmen emphasized committees already had many of the same cables and messages [1].
4. Internal edits, political concerns, and accountability disputes
After the attack, internal State Department messaging and talking points became a flashpoint; memos show at least one senior spokeswoman revised language citing fear that members of Congress would “beat up the State Department” over unvarnished warnings, and Republican and Democratic investigators disputed whether accountability reached senior leaders [10] [6]. The ARB and subsequent reviews faulted management failures in Diplomatic Security and led to limited personnel actions, but congressional majority reports argued senior official accountability was insufficient [8] [6].
5. Competing narratives and what the record does and does not show
The documentary record assembled by investigators establishes that specific cables and emails—Stevens’ dispatches, Nordstrom’s March and July 2012 cables, Blue Mountain contractor messages, and near‑300 IC reports—warned of heightened threats [1] [2] [3] [7]. Where accounts diverge is over causation and responsibility: State Department defenders stress that many documents were known to oversight committees and that ARB processes were followed, while critics point to unanswered cables, constrained security numbers, and edits to public talking points as evidence of managerial failure or political caution [1] [10] [6]. Reporting and declassified reviews document the warnings and show uneven handling by State officials, but the sources provided here do not resolve every disputed judgment about who at what level approved which specific staffing decisions in time to prevent the attack [4] [10].