7INTELLIGENCECOMMUNITY
Dustin J. Carmack

MISSION STATEMENT

To arm a future incoming conservative President with the knowledge and tools
necessary to fortify the United States Intelligence Community; to defend against
all foreign enemies and ensure the security and prosperity of our sovereign nation,
devoid of all political motivations; and to maintain constitutional civil liberties.
OVERVIEWThe United States Intelligence Community (IC) is a vast, intricate bureaucracy
spread throughout 18 independent and Cabinet subagencies.1 According to the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the IC’s mission is “to collect, analyze, and deliver foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information
to America’s leaders so they can make sound decisions to protect our country.”2
An incoming conservative President needs to use these intelligence authorities
aggressively to anticipate and thwart our adversaries, including Russia, Iran, North
Korea, and especially China, while maintaining counterterrorism tools that havedemonstrated their effectiveness. This means empowering the right personnel
to manage, build, and effectively execute actions dispersed throughout the IC todeliver intelligence in an ever-challenging world. It also means removing redundancies, mission creep, and IC infighting that could prevent these collection tools
from providing objective, apolitical, and empirically backed intelligence to the IC’spremier customer: the President of the United States.
Today, as Abraham Lincoln famously said, “The occasion is piled high withdifficulty, and we must rise with the occasion…. [W]e must think anew, and act— 201 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promiseanew.”3 The Intelligence Community maintains an incredible capacity to achieve
its mission, but both the IC and the somewhat antiquated infrastructure that supports it often place too high a priority on yesterday’s threats and methodologies
instead of trying to identify possible future threats or the methodologies thatmight be needed to combat them. The IC also often spends too much time overcorrecting for past mistakes. The unintended consequences include hesitancy,groupthink, and an overly cautious approach that allows personal incentives todrive preset courses.
The IC must be perceived as a depoliticized protector of America’s civil rights
and security. The American people are understandably frustrated by the fact thatthose who abuse power are rarely held to account for their actions. This mustchange, beginning with leadership that is both committed to ensuring that theseagencies faithfully execute the laws of the land under the Constitution and resolved
to punish and remove any officials who have abused the public trust.
The IC must also start to look forward, not backward. A concerted, disciplined,
leadership-led initiative must be undertaken to refocus and shift IC prioritization,
funding, and authorities to new and emerging threats, technologies, and methodologies if the United States is to prevail against its global adversaries.4 Unfortunately,
America’s major strategic threat is a nation-state peer and possibly ahead of the
U.S. in strategic areas. An incoming President must understand that today’s intelligence competition could well require analyzing technologies the U.S. does nothave or compartmentalizing certain information as was done during the Cold
War because of intelligence penetration. A future President’s ability to drive theresources needed to defeat another nation-state giant should therefore be thefocus of near-term IC reforms.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (ODNI)The ODNI was established in the aftermath of the attacks on 9/11 and intelligence failures leading up to the 2003 U.S. war in Iraq. The office and its functions
stem from authorities established under executive orders promulgated byPresident George W. Bush in 2004, followed by statutory authorizations in theIntelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA).5
Proponents of an ODNI hoped to establish reforms similar to the Goldwater–
Nichols Department of Defense (DOD) reforms of the 1980s, which identified
recurring problems within DOD’s command-and-control architecture and led tounified Combatant Commands with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as
the senior ranking member of the armed forces and principal military adviser tothe President. The ODNI was envisioned as a small but powerful IC coordinating
agency led by a Director of National Intelligence (DNI). As the President’s principal
intelligence adviser, the DNI would lead and provide oversight of the President’s
intelligence authorities while wielding a cudgel—budget and appointment— 202 —

2025 Presidential Transition Projectauthorities—to break institutional silos that had caused past intelligence integration failures.
Originally envisioned by the 9/11 Commission as a strengthened, authoritative
position, the final congressionally negotiated product signed by President Bush
has led to ambiguous and vague authorities that are dependent on who is selected
as DNI and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director and their level of support
from the White House and National Security Council (NSC). 9/11 Commission
Executive Director Philip Zelikow warned in a 2004 hearing that creating a newagency “lacking any existing institutional base…would require authorities at least
as strong as those we have proposed or else it would create a bureaucratic fifth
wheel that would make the present situation even worse.”6 The ODNI has becomethat bureaucratic fifth wheel about which Zelikow warned.
For example, under the Bush Administration’s initial legislative proposal, theCIA Director would have been under the “authority, direction, and control” of the
DNI and no longer the head of an autonomous agency. Additional mechanisms
envisioned full budget authority for the DNI, including within DOD’s intelligencecomponents, as opposed to coordinating authority. Through arduous “sausage-making” and relatively quick negotiations, lawmakers produced statutorilyvague authorities that traded away the DNI’s ability to direct budgetary authority
across the entire IC, including DOD, and left the CIA a subordinate but independent agency with duties to report to the DNI without explicit directing authority.
These statutory developments were what led President Bush’s first choice toserve as DNI, Robert Gates, to turn down the position. In discussions with theWhite House over the post, Gates noted that the “legislation weakened the leadership of the community” and that “instead of a stronger person, you ended up
with a weaker person because the DNI had no troops and no additional powers
really on the budget, hiring, and firing.”7 Gates noted that success would require
the President to “make explicit publicly that the DNI is head of the Intelligence
Community, not some budgeter or coordinator,” and that “[t]he position’s only
prayer of success is for the president to say plainly…how he sees the job. Without
his explicit mandate…the endeavor is doomed to fail.”8
One of the two DNIs confirmed by the Senate during the Trump Administration, John Ratcliffe, acknowledged that Gates’s theoretical concerns became thepractical reality that he inherited:
Prior DNIs were the head of the IC only on paper and were routinely
accustomed to yielding IC actions and decisions to the preferences of the
CIA and other agencies. My ability to begin reversing that capitulation was
accomplished solely because President Trump made it repeatedly clear to theentire national security apparatus that he expected all intelligence matters togo through the DNI.9— 203 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

To help further the legislative intent behind IRTPA, DNI Ratcliffe advised
during the transition of incoming Biden DNI Avril Haines that the DNI shouldbe the only Cabinet-level intelligence official.10 While his recommendation was
adopted and has corrected the previously allowed imbalance by making the DNI
the only Cabinet official and head of the IC at the table, the ODNI’s effectivenessand direction leave much to be desired.
A conservative President must decide how to empower an individual to oversee
and manage the Intelligence Community effectively. To be successful, the DNI
and ODNI must be able to lead the IC and implement the President’s intelligence
priorities. This includes being able to exercise both budget and personnel authority
and being able to rely on timely, useful feedback from subordinate components of
the IC, many of which are located within other Cabinet agencies.
The ODNI needs to direct, not replicate in-house, the other IC agencies’ analytic,
operational, and management functions. Considerations like mismanagementof human resources, joint-duty assignments, and accelerated growth in seniorpersonnel can cause a President to dictate to his incoming DNI a desire to slash
redundant positions and expenditures while simultaneously giving the DNI theauthority to drive necessary changes throughout the IC to deal with the nation’s
most compelling threats, including those emanating from China. As John Ratcliffe
has noted, “These are essential to the DNI having the abilities and authorities toeffectively direct, coordinate, and tackle the immense national security challenges
ahead for the Intelligence Community as intended under IRTPA.”11
Otherwise, other Cabinet and subordinate IC agencies will continue to regard
the ODNI as an annoyance and not as a positive contributor to the National Intelligence Program (NIP) budget. They will continue to work around or circumventODNI leadership decisions with appropriators and the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) or seek to wait out an Administration or DNI to prevent a policy orintelligence priority from reaching fruition.
Intelligence and interagency coordination has improved significantly since
9/11. Nevertheless, interagency rivalries and festering issues continue to cause
duplication of effort on intelligence analysis and technology purchases as well as
overclassification and ever-increasing compartmentalization. Additional issues
include the abuse of mandated onboarding approval and reciprocity timelines bysome agencies, recruitment and retention failures, and a lack of will to remove
underperforming or timely adjudicate the misconduct of senior managers andother employees.
Finally, future IC leadership must address the widely promoted “woke” culture that has spread throughout the federal government with identity politics and“social justice” advocacy replacing such traditional American values as patriotism,
colorblindness, and even workplace competence.

— 204 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12333

IRTPA was passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks against the homeland. It
was intended to improve the sharing of information among the elements of theIC, recognizing that the nature of the threats we now face blurs the lines between
foreign and domestic intelligence in detecting and countering national security
threats against the homeland. An equally important objective in passing the mostsignificant intelligence reform since the National Security Act of 194712 was creation of the position of DNI, charged with assuming two of the three principal roles
that formerly belonged to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI): serving as
principal intelligence adviser to the President and leading the IC as an enterprise.
Nearly two decades later, the DNI’s record of effectiveness in improving thesharing of information and operating the IC as an enterprise is mixed. Implementation of the DNI’s roles as leader of the IC and principal intelligence adviser tothe President has been challenging. However, despite flaws in the legislation andintelligence agencies’ bureaucratic jockeying that undermine the DNI, it is impossible to know what would emerge if Congress were to revisit the act. Seeking a
legislative solution therefore might carry with it more risks than benefits. Instead,an incoming conservative President’s immediate focus should be on modifying
Executive Order 12333, the President’s direction for implementing IRTPA.13
Executive Order 12333 was last amended on July 30, 2008, by President George
W. Bush.14 The revisions were aligned with IRTPA with significant emphasis on
having the IC address the threats to the homeland from international terrorism
and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. There is scant mention of
cyber threats and the evolving national security challenges posed by China, Russia,
and other U.S. adversaries. By extension, the revised order fell short of stipulating how the DNI would execute his authority to organize the IC in a manner that
improves the delivery of timely intelligence to a wide array of customers.
Executive Order 12333 should be amended to take account of the changing
landscape of threats and improve the functional aspects of America’s intelligence
enterprise. To that end, a revised order should:lAddress the threats to the United States and its allies in cyberspace.
These threats range from cyberwarfare to information operations. The
amended order should clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities ofthe various U.S. government cyber missions, including the recently created
National Cyber Director’s Office and power centers at the NSC, while
protecting the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. citizens.
Under the DNI’s direction, the cyber mission should explicitly identify
how information in the cyber domain will be shared promptly with thewarfighters, from law enforcement agencies to the broader IC and state,— 205 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

local, and tribal elements. The order should consider stipulating what to
do with DOD cyber agencies, most notably the NSA, in terms of strategic(for example, the President and the DNI) vs. tactical support (for example,
support for the warfighter) in conjunction with ongoing congressionallymandated reviews of the future dual-hatted relationship.
lEnhance the DNI’s role in overseeing execution of the National
Intelligence Program budget under the President’s authority. Thisshould be done in a manner that is consistent with Congress’s intent as
embodied in IRTPA. Under the executive order as written today, the DNI“shall oversee and direct the implementation of the National Intelligence
Program.” In practice, the DNI’s authority to oversee execution of the IC’sbudget remains constrained by an inability to address changing intelligence
priorities and mandate the implementation of appropriated NIP funding tohigher intelligence priorities.
The DNI should have the President’s direction to address emerging but
catastrophic threats such as those posed by bioweapons. Clarifying how
much budget authority the DNI has in conjunction (within the limits ofcongressional appropriations) with OMB and IC-member Cabinet officials
to move around money and personnel is crucial, but positions will notalways be fungible. It will probably be necessary to hold IC leadershipaccountable at intransigent agencies and to restructure areas throughexecutive orders in close conjunction with OMB, as needed.

lClarify the DNI’s role as leader of the IC as an enterprise in building theIC’s capabilities around its open-source collection and analytic missions.
The exponential growth in open-source information, often called OSINT, is not
disputed. In the IC, the use of publicly available information, notwithstanding
the authorities within IRTPA for the DNI to manage OSINT, remains
disaggregated. The explosion of private-sector intelligence products andexpertise should signal to IC leadership that duplicative efforts are unnecessary
and that limited resources should be focused on problematic collection tasks.
The IC should avoid duplication of what is already being done well in
the private sector and focus instead on complex questions that cannot
be answered by conventional and frequently increasing numbers ofcommercial tools and capabilities. If necessary, for lack of results from the
National Open Source Committee, the DNI should appoint the Principal
Deputy Director of National Intelligence (PDDNI) as chairman to prioritize
and promote accountability for the IC’s 18 agencies toward this effort.

— 206 —

2025 Presidential Transition Projectl

Prioritize security clearance reform. Security clearance reform has
made significant progress under Trusted Workforce 2.0, a governmentwidebackground investigation reform that was implemented beginning in 2018with the goal of creating one system with reciprocity across organizations.
This included allowing movement from periodic reinvestigations towarda Continuous Vetting (CV) program with automated records checks,
adjudication of flags, the “mitigat[ion of ] personnel security situations
before they become a larger problem,” or the suspension or revocation ofclearances.15 However, human resources onboarding operations in major
agencies such as the CIA, FBI, and NSA remain to be resolved.
As executive agent for security clearances, the DNI must require resultsfrom agencies that resist implementation, enforce the 48-hour reciprocity
guidance, and target human resources operations that fail to attract andexpediently onboard qualified personnel. Additional “carrots and sticks”
from executive order reform language, including moving the Security
Services Directorate from NCSC to ODNI with elevated status, may benecessary. It is unacceptable for agencies to hinder opportunities for crossagency assignments, use public–private partnerships inefficiently becauseof constraints on the transferability of security clearances, and lose future
talent because of extraordinary delays in backend operations. Proper vetting
to speed the onboarding of personnel with much-needed expertise is vital to
the IC’s future.

llEnsure the DNI’s authority. The DNI’s authority should be similar to anorchestra conductor’s. An incoming conservative President will appoint
whomever he chooses as DNI, but there should be agreement between theincoming DNI and President with advice and counsel from the Presidential
Personnel Office on selecting positions overseen by the DNI throughout
subordinate agencies, as well as concurrence by relevant Cabinet officials
and the CIA. This exists by executive order, but many Presidents, PPOs, andCabinet agency heads do not follow executive order guidance and necessary
norms. The importance of trust, character, and the ability to work together
to achieve a joint set of intelligence goals established by the President
cannot be overstated: It is a mission that can be accomplished only with theconductor and his orchestra playing in sync.
Provide additional support for such economic and supply chain–focused agencies as the Department of Commerce. Information sharing
and feedback can help subagencies like the Commerce Department’s
Bureau of Industry and Security to improve their understanding of the— 207 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

threat from China and thereby counter it more effectively. They can also
aid the development of export control mechanisms and potential outboundinvestment screening where necessary. Brief, specific governance language
should be considered that would apply counterterrorist authority models tothe broader functions of the U.S. government insofar as they are needed tocounter 21st century nation-state threats.
The success of any DNI rests with support from the President. Any revised
Executive Order 12333 must serve to express unequivocal support for the DNI in
executing the mandates that an amended order would provide.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA)The CIA is a foreign intelligence collection service tasked with collecting human
intelligence (HUMINT), providing all-source intelligence analysis and reporting, and conducting covert action when required to do so by the President. The
CIA has its roots in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which the United States
established during World War II as a paramilitary and intelligence collection organization. After World War II, President Harry Truman disbanded the OSS, and the
CIA was established in law by the National Security Act of 1947.
As with every agency in government, the President's election sets a new agenda
for the country. Public servants must be mindful that they are required to help
the President implement that agenda while remaining apolitical, upholding theConstitution and laws of the United States, and earning the public trust. The President requires a CIA that provides unbiased and apolitical foreign intelligence
information and, when necessary, can act capably and effectively on any covert
action findings.
Executing the Mission. The CIA’s success depends on firm direction from the
President and solid internal CIA Director–appointed leadership. Decisive seniorleaders must commit to carrying out the President’s agenda and be willing to takecalculated risks. Therefore:ll

The next President-Elect and incoming Presidential Personnel Officeshould identify a Director nominee who can foster a mission-driven culture
by making necessary personnel and structural changes.
The President-Elect should choose a Deputy Director who, without
needing Senate confirmation, can immediately begin to implement the
President’s agenda. This includes halting all current hiring to preventthe “burrowing in” of outgoing political personnel. Additional appointees
should be placed within the agency as needed to assist the Director insupervising its functioning.

— 208 —

2025 Presidential Transition Projectll

The Director and Deputy Director should request briefings on all CIA
activities and presence overseas, as well as any CIA-controlled accessprograms and existing covert action findings, without exception.
The Director and Deputy Director should meet with all directorates andmission centers, prioritizing those that are aligned most closely with the
President’s priorities and calibrating collection and operations based on
the President’s intelligence requirements. This includes any areas where
the CIA might be conducting its own diplomacy parallel to official State
Department policy. It must be clear that the CIA’s liaison relationships
overseas must follow and not contradict those set at the policy level by the
President through the State Department.

The other principal offices responsible for executing the CIA’s mission include
the Directorate of Operations, Directorate of Analysis, Directorate of Science andTechnology, Directorate of Support, and Directorate of Digital Innovation. If seniorleadership finds any program or operation to be inconsistent with the President’s
agenda, the Director should immediately halt that program or operation.
Reining in Bureaucracy. The CIA’s bureaucracy continues to grow. Because
mid-level managers lack accountability, there are areas in which personnel are notresponsive to any authority, including the President. The President should instruct
the Director to hire or promote new individuals to lead the various directorates
and mission centers. This new crop of mid-level leaders should carry out clear
directives from senior CIA leadership, which means more accountability and new
ways of thinking to benefit the mission.
In addition, the President should task the Director with significantly broadening
recruitment, expediting onboarding practices, and shifting resources away fromheadquarters, including terminal generalist GS-15s when OPM buyouts, forced
rotations, or up-and-out personnel policies are set for particular positions. The
CIA must find creative ways to align mission requirements with hiring needs,
recruit diverse sets of individuals with unique backgrounds, and become more
open to hiring private-sector experts directly into senior positions. In addition,
the Director should break the cabal of bureaucrats in D.C. by permanently moving
various directorates, such as Support and Science and Technology, out of Virginia
and possibly open campuses outside of D.C. where analysts and other experts could
contribute virtually.
Redirecting Resources. Certain CIA employees and offices have focused on
promoting divisive ideological or cultural agendas and fostering a damaging culture of risk aversion and complacency. As soon as possible, the Director should
divert resources from any activities that promote unnecessary and distracting
social engineering. The Director should implement changes in promotion criteria— 209 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promisethat reward individuals for creative thinking and quality of recruitments and products rather than numeric metrics or the achievement of benchmarks that are notessential to the mission.
Not all careers in espionage are created equal, and the Director should incentivize and reward applicants who are willing to accept high risks over those who areclimbing the ranks simply by doing business as usual. The Director should refocus
the CIA to an OSS-like culture and mandate that all CIA employees acquire, as acondition of securing senior (GS-14+) rank, additional or enhanced language skills,
technical or cyber expertise, or field training or serve in overseas assignments.
COVERT ACTION

Covert action can be a valuable tool in helping further the President’s foreign
policy agenda if implemented in concert with other forms of government power.
As codified in the U.S. Code, “the term ‘covert action’ means an activity or activitiesof the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government
will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly….”16
The President initiates a covert action with a written finding that explains why“such an action is necessary to support identifiable foreign policy objectives of theUnited States and is important to the national security of the United States.”17 The
statute assumes the President will use the CIA as the principal action element toachieve the objectives of covert action findings; however, the President need not
feel constrained to utilize only the CIA: “[E]ach finding shall specify each department, agency, or entity of the United States Government authorized to fund orotherwise participate in any significant way in such action.”18
For example, the Department of Defense maintains certain clandestine capabilities under Title 10 authorities that may resemble but far exceed in scale similarcapabilities outside of DOD. Generally, such DOD capabilities can be employedoutside a combat theater only if they are determined to be traditional militaryactivities. In practical terms, this means that many DOD capabilities, including
those in the space and cyber domains, can be employed only after the initiation ofarmed conflict.19 Given the range of global threats the United States faces today,
the President should consider whether DOD’s complete set of capabilities should
be used to support potential covert actions.
The problem, unfortunately, is that certain elements in the State Department,
IC, and DOD trade on risk aversion or political bureaucracy to delay executionof the President’s foreign policy goals. A future conservative President should
therefore identify individuals on the transition team who are familiar with theimplementation of covert action with a view to placing them in key NSC, CIA,ODNI, and DOD positions. These knowledgeable teams can assist in any review
of current covert actions and, potentially, planning for new actions.

— 210 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

Immediately after the inauguration, the President should task the NSC’s SeniorDirector for Intelligence Programs with conducting a 60-day review of any current
covert action findings, including their effectiveness; evaluating new covert actions
that might be needed to implement the President’s foreign policy goals; and reporting back to the President. Such an assessment should be conducted independentlyof the agencies responsible for the actions under review. As part of the review, theSenior Director for Intelligence Programs should identify which departments oragencies, such as the CIA or DOD, are best equipped to achieve the objectives set
out in new and existing findings.
After the 60-day review, the President should demand creative thinking and aclear strategy as to how covert action fits within the President’s broader foreign
policy strategy, to include possibly modifying or rescinding any current findings,
drafting new findings, and streamlining or eliminating needless bureaucracy, particularly at State, to facilitate more expeditious decisions on tactical covert action.
Careful thought should be given to the metrics by which the effectiveness of covert
action programs will be measured to ensure the appropriate use of government
resources and to guard against the possibility of covert action’s being used withlittle scrutiny in ways that are inconsistent with overt foreign policy goals.
ODNI AND CIA ORGANIZATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONSThe ODNI and CIA operate under authority provided by the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949,20 which means they have greater latitude than the restof the federal government with respect to the hiring and firing of personnel. Bothorganizations and other areas of the IC have struggled from a human resources
and talent management standpoint to recruit, onboard, and maintain personnel
in a timely fashion to fill the IC’s ever-changing needs. At a time when the Intelligence Community needs significantly more personnel with the proper technical,
language-capable, and diverse backgrounds, including applicants from elementsof the business community, the incoming Directors of both agencies need to makethis effort a top priority.
Past DNIs’ Chiefs of Staff and additional front-office staff historically have comefrom outside the IC, commonly under a misconstrued “staff-reserve” structurethat is intended to avoid a Schedule C designation within the IC. The Director
should handpick qualified, properly cleared personnel for front-office and managerial leadership positions, such as the DNI’s Chief of Staff and heads of Legislative
Affairs and Strategic Communications, to oversee those divisions with career IC
staff reporting to them.
The incoming DNI and CIA Director should also consider changes in the Senior
National Intelligence Service (SNIS)/Senior Intelligence Services (SIS). Senior
officers should be required to sign mobility agreements that allow ODNI and CIA
leadership to move them within the IC every two years if necessary. Many qualified— 211 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promiseand distinguished senior officers serve throughout the IC, but some long-serving
generalist officers no longer perform at a high capacity, are management-driven,
do not serve the IC’s changing needs, and limit junior officers’ prospects for growth
and advancement. An incoming Administration should consider studying andimplementing additional requirements as a condition for promotion to GS-15/
SNIS/SIS and explore concepts such as “Up and Out” beginning at the GS-14/15
levels and above for some fields.
The IC should evaluate areas of bloat and underperforming cadre and workwith OPM on authority for voluntary separation buyouts. Allowing ODNI and CIA
leadership to shrink size and reduce duplication of effort while promoting healthy
turnover within their senior ranks would encourage new ideas and perspectives
from mid-career officers and, potentially, from employees hired from outside
their agencies. The ODNI and CIA should maximize their direct-hire and incentive-building authorities to bring in talented and properly cleared individuals toserve in positions requiring technical, language, and cyber expertise.
Finally, the human resources and talent management systems for onboarding
purposes at the ODNI, CIA, and some other elements of the IC are fundamentallybroken. For example, according to current CIA Director William Burns, it recently
took more than 600 days, on average, for a CIA applicant to receive his or her
necessary security clearance.21 Although security clearance procedures have beensomewhat improved in recent years and Burns has committed CIA to reducing thatto no more than 180 days, degradation in other areas of the process has limited theIC’s capacity to attract qualified and needed expertise.
PREVENTING THE ABUSE OF INTELLIGENCE
FOR PARTISAN PURPOSES

The intelligence function must be protected from bottom-up and top-downpoliticization if it is to play its proper role in our national security decision-making process. Unfortunately, both types of politicization have occurred recently tothe detriment of the Intelligence Community’s reputation and credibility. More
important, the politicization of intelligence risks contributing to policy failures (as we saw with the Iraq War) or even undermining our democratic systemhere at home.
In particular, the IC must restore confidence in its political neutrality to rectify
the damage done by the actions of former IC leaders and personnel regarding theclaims of Trump–Russia collusion following the 2016 election and the suppressionof the Hunter Biden laptop investigation and media revelations of its existence
during the 2020 election. But the problem is not confined to the executive branch
struggle between the IC and policymakers; it also relates to the IC’s relationshipwith Congress as evinced by DNI James Clapper’s failure to answer honestly inresponse to congressional questions about government surveillance programs.

— 212 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

The ODNI and CIA are undergoing a crisis of confidence based on several factors.
First, President Barack Obama’s CIA Director, John Brennan, gravely damaged the
CIA by minimizing the Directorate of Operations and exploiting intelligence analysis as a political weapon after he left office. Brennan's role in the letter signed by 51
former intelligence officials before the 2020 election is unclear, but in dismissing
the Hunter Biden laptop as “Russian disinformation,” the CIA was discredited, andthe shocking extent of politicization among some former IC officials was revealed.
Restoring respect for the IC as an independent provider of information andanalysis while also ensuring that it is responsive to the legitimate needs of policymakers will require reinforcing essential norms and institutions. However, weshould also recognize that achieving the perfect balance that avoids the pathologies
of too much distance or too much closeness and responsiveness to policymakers
is not only difficult, but probably impossible.22 Thus, given the very nature of thebusiness and the political process, much will depend on the promotion of certain
norms or virtues on both sides of the principal–agent relationship. Specifically:lll

The DNI and CIA Director should use their authority under the National
Security Act of 1947 to expedite the clearance of personnel to meet mission
needs and remove IC employees who have abused their positions of trust.
An area of particular concern is that personnel under investigation forimproprieties have been allowed to retire before internal investigations
have been completed. Directors of both agencies must instill further
confidence in their workforces, Congress, and the American people thatthey can and will deal effectively with personnel that fail to live up to theiroath to the Constitution, adhere to ethical and moral standards as expectedby America’s taxpayers, and faithfully execute the law.
The President should direct the DNI and the Attorney General, by directionof the respective Inspectors General and IC Analytic Ombudsman, toconduct a further audit of all IC equities of past politicization and abusesof intelligence information. For example, a recent IC ombudsman analysis
during the 2020 election cycle noted, “If our political leaders in the WhiteHouse and Congress believe we are withholding intelligence because oforganizational turf wars or political considerations, the legitimacy of theIntelligence Community’s work is lost.”23
The President should immediately revoke the security clearances of any
former Directors, Deputy Directors, or other senior intelligence officials
who discuss their work in the press or on social media without priorclearance from the current Director. IC agencies, including the CIA, should
minimize their public presence and vigorously investigate any and all leaks— 213 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promiseof information, classified or otherwise. The ODNI and CIA should fire orrefer for prosecution any employee who is suspected of leaking information,and penalties should include the removal of pension benefits for those who
are found guilty. Additional tools are needed to prevent leaked intelligencefrom being used as a weapon in policy debates by IC leaders or decisionmakers in the executive branch or Congress.
l

l

l

l

l

In addition, the Department of Justice should use all of the tools at its
disposal to investigate leaks and should rescind damaging guidance byAttorney General Merrick Garland that limits investigators’ ability toidentify records of unauthorized disclosures of classified information to
the media. Personnel have sufficient access to legitimate whistleblower
claims under protections provided by Inspectors General and Congress. The
Director and IC must prioritize hiring additional counterintelligence andsecurity personnel to assist in this effort.
Military and civilian IC training should include stronger emphasison the norm of political neutrality, including a mandatory course on
professionalism and repercussions for abuse in the execution of duties in all
degree programs at the National Intelligence University.
Intelligence leaders need to model norms of neutrality and respect for thedecision-making authority of the President, appointed officials, and Congress.
This includes building trust with key decision-makers by not using theirpositions and privileged access to information to influence policymaking
indirectly or directly in an inappropriate fashion (especially by engaging inthreat inflation). IC leaders should practice extreme restraint in engaging
with the public and the media. They should seek to work in the shadows
rather than in the limelight. Potential restrictions on such appearances could
supplement this norm, preventing political leaders from using IC officials to
support an Administration position as they do with military leaders.
Retired IC leaders should similarly support the neutrality norm by not
becoming public figures.
Congress should not use IC leaders as pawns in policy struggles with the
President or the other party during their appearances before committees ofthe House and Senate. While Congress has a proper oversight role, it should
distinguish between information that needs to be public and informationthat should be discussed in private with members of the IC. A DNI should
call “balls and strikes” to those on both sides of the aisle on Capitol— 214 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

Hill who attempt to weaponize the use of selective intelligence to feed
political narratives.
ll

Political leaders should avoid “manipulation-by-appointment,” a practiceby which intelligence leaders are selected for their policy views or politicalloyalties instead of their skilled expertise.24 Presidents should also avoid
public rebukes and pressure from the intelligence profession, which can
include intimidation and bullying, to shape IC analysis. This will be easier if
IC leaders live by the norms of neutrality and thus are not seen as politicalactors, for whom political responses are deemed necessary.
Intelligence leaders and professionals should never “cook the books” forPresidents or change or shape their analysis to preserve access or status.25

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT (FISA)

A future President should understand the importance of FISA26 while also seeking reforms and accountability for any abuses of its authorities. When discussing
FISA and what changes may need to be made, it is important to note and recognizethat there are stark differences among the individual FISA authorities.
Section 702 of FISA, for example, allows the IC to target foreign terrorists, spies,
cyber hackers, and other bad actors (but only if they are non-U.S. persons) when
their communications pass through the United States. While this authority may
lapse if Congress does not resolve the issue by the end of 2023, Section 702 should
be understood as an essential tool in the fight against terrorism, malicious cyberactors, and Chinese espionage. These are two major national security priorities
for an incoming President, and it is imperative that the need to use properly maintained and accountable authorities to counter these challenges be recognized.
Section 702 is a vital program that often provides the lion’s share of intelligenceused in the President’s Daily Brief (PDB).27 An independent review by the Privacy
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) found that it was not abused. Nevertheless, Congress should review the PCLOB’s upcoming 2023 report to help it
determine whether any reforms or codification of recent administrative changes
in FISA processes are needed.
Other authorities in Title I and Title III, often referred to as “traditional” FISA,
have elicited valid concerns about the politicization of intelligence collection
authority in recent years. When seeking surveillance of Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page, for example, the FBI and the Department of Justice concealed vital
information from a specialized court and submitted applications that were riddledwith errors. An incoming conservative President should consider reforms designed
to prevent future partisan abuses of national security authority. A package of strong
provisions to protect against such partisanship might include:— 215 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

l

l

l

l

Stiffer penalties and mandatory investigations when intelligence leaks are
aimed at domestic political targets,
Tighter controls on otherwise lawful intercepts that also collect thecommunications of domestic political figures,
An express prohibition on politically motivated use of intelligenceauthorities, andReforms to improve the accountability of the Justice Department and theForeign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

To keep intelligence credentials from being used for partisan purposes, former
high-ranking intelligence officials who retain a clearance should remain subject tothe Hatch Act after they leave government to deter them from tying their politicalstands or activism to their continuing privilege of access to classified government
information. The IC should be prohibited from monitoring so-called domestic
disinformation. Such activity can easily slip into suppression of an opposition
party’s speech, is corrosive of First Amendment protections, and raises questions
about impartiality when the IC chooses not to act.
CHINA-FOCUSED CHANGES, REFORMS, AND RESOURCES

The term “whole of government” is all too frequently overused, but in
responding to the generational threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party,
that is exactly the approach that our national security apparatus should adopt.
CIA Director William Burns has formally established a China Mission Center
focused on these efforts, but it can be successful only if it is given the necessary
personnel, cross-community collaboration, and resources. That is uncertain at
this point, and just how seriously the organization is taking the staffing of thecenter is unclear.
A critical strategic question for an incoming Administration and IC leaders will be: How, when, and with whom do we share our classified intelligence?
Understanding when to pass things to liaisons and for what purpose will be vitalto outmaneuvering China in the intelligence sphere. Questions for a President
will include:llWhat is our overarching conception of the adversarial relationship andcompetition?
How does intelligence-sharing fit into that conception?

— 216 —

2025 Presidential Transition ProjectSome Members of Congress have said that intelligence relationships such as
the Five Eyes28 should be expanded to include other allies in the Asia–Pacific in, forexample, a “Nine Eyes” framework. This fails to take into account the fact that any
blanket expansion would necessarily involve protecting the sources and methods ofa larger and quite possibly more diverse group of member countries that might or
might not have congruent interests. That being said, however, a future conservative
President should consider what resources and information-sharing relationships
could be included in an ad hoc or quasi-formal intelligence expansion (for example,
with the Quad) among nations trying to counter the threat from China.
Significant technology, language skills, and financial intelligence resources
are needed to counter China’s capabilities.29 The IC was caught flat-footed by the
recent discovery of China’s successful test of a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile.
No longer can America’s information and technological dominance be assumed.
China’s gains and intense focus on emerging technologies have taken it in someareas from being a near-peer competitor to probably being ahead of the UnitedStates. China’s centralized government allocates endless resources (sometimes
inefficiently) to its strategic “Made in China 2025” and military apparatuses, which
combine government, military, and private-sector activities on quantum information sciences and technologies, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning,biotechnologies, and advanced robotics.
The IC must do more than understand these advancements: It must rally nongovernment and allied partners and inspire unified action to counter them. In
addition, to combat China’s economic espionage, authorities and loopholes in theForeign Agents Registration Act (FARA)30 will have to be examined and addressedin conjunction with the Attorney General.
Many issues within the broader government can be tied back to a more generalcongressional understanding of the threat due to the compartmentalization ofcommittee jurisdictions and the responsibilities of executive agencies to brief on
the nature of the threat. Broader committee jurisdictions should receive additional
intelligence from IC agencies as necessary to inform China’s unique and more comprehensive threat across layers of the U.S. government bureaucracy and economy.
Former DNI John Ratcliffe increased the intelligence budget as it related toChina by 20 percent. “When people ask me why I did that,” he explained in aninterview, “I say, ‘Because no one would let me increase it by 40%.’ I had an $85
billion combined annual budget for both the national intelligence program andmilitary intelligence program. My perspective was, ‘Whatever we’re spending on
countering China, it isn’t enough.’”31 From an intelligence standpoint, the needto understand Chinese motivations, capabilities, and intent will be of paramountimportance to a future conservative President. It is therefore also of paramountimportance that the “whole of government” be rowing together.

— 217 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

NATIONAL COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY CENTER (NCSC)The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) has taken a keen interest in possibly updating the codified language underpinning much of the nation’s
counterintelligence apparatus. “Spy vs. spy” threats continue to exist, but the riseof China and (to an extent) Russia’s machinations move beyond the governmental
sphere to technological, economic, supply chain, cyber, academic, state, and local
espionage threats at a level our country has never seen. The asymmetric threat
includes cyber, nontraditional collection, and issues involving legitimate businesses serving as collection platforms.
Barring statutory changes that could occur before 2025, a future conservative President should further empower and resource the IC by executive order or
through suggested changes in the Counterintelligence Enhancement Act (CEA)of 2002.32 NCSC was given some authority for outreach efforts on behalf of the IC
for counterintelligence education, insider threats, and broader U.S. government
best practices, but there remain significant deltas between Title 50 and non–Title
50 entities’ protections. Primary operational elements should remain at the FBI
and CIA, with the Bureau and NCSC collaborating on nongovernmental outreach.
While there is no need to create a separate agency, a future President and DNI
should amplify NCSC’s authorities and roles with respect to counterintelligencestrategy, policy, outreach, and governance, including supporting necessary Joint
Duty Assignments (JDA) for FBI and CIA personnel. At the same time, the FBI
requires significant additional resources and legal authorities to fulfill its statutory role as the lead operational counterintelligence agency in dealing with theever-growing threats posed by our adversaries. The CEA should be updated toinclude foreign espionage efforts aimed at universities.
Corporate America, technology companies, research institutions, and academia
must be willing, educated partners in this generational fight to protect our national
security interests, economic interests, national sovereignty, and intellectual property as well as the broader rules-based order—all while avoiding the tendency
to cave to the left-wing activists and investors who ignore the China threat andincreasingly dominate the corporate world. Reinstitution of the National Security
Higher Education Advisory Board and the National Security Business AllianceCouncil should be prioritized with leadership from the NCSC, the FBI, or a combination of both entities.
When the CCP steals at least $400 billion–$600 billion in intellectual property each year, it is time to devote some strategic thinking to exactly how and towhat degree counterintelligence efforts can help to protect America’s commercial
endeavors. If Chinese strategic technology gains are happening almost entirely intransnational commercial space, for example, and the private sector is also gathering and analyzing some critical intelligence, these essential data points should
assist in national-level counterintelligence efforts.

— 218 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

The NCSC was created in the aftermath of 9/11 as the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), which later became the National Counterterrorism Center(NCTC) pursuant to President George W. Bush’s Executive Order 13354.33 The
NCTC was an organization of approximately three dozen detainees from acrossthe U.S. government with a mandate to integrate counterterrorism intelligenceand missions, including terrorist screening. Eventually:
In November 2014 the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) established
NCSC by combining [the Office of the National Counterintelligence
Executive] with the Center for Security Evaluation, the Special Security
Center and the National Insider Threat Task Force, to effectively integrate
and align counterintelligence and security mission areas under a single
organizational construct. The Director of NCSC serves in support of the DNI’srole as Security Executive Agent (SecEA) to develop, implement, oversee andintegrate personnel security initiatives throughout the U.S. Government.34

NCSC has added value in such areas as fusing cross-community intelligence forterrorism watchlisting purposes and improving information sharing while carrying
roughly half of the overall cadre for the ODNI. An incoming Administration should
focus NCTC on integrative tasks, many of which cannot be carried out elsewherein the IC, but should not use personnel and resources for redundant analyses that
duplicate the work of such other IC entities as the FBI and CIA.
ADDITIONAL AREAS FOR REFORM

Analytical Integrity. The “tradecraft” of intelligence analysis is mostly a collection of lessons learned over decades about what works and does not work in a
profession whose high-stakes work is performed by thousands but that also bears
little outside scrutiny and provides few metrics by which to gauge success or failure
on a regular basis. These lessons have accumulated from:
l

l

l

l

The perceived misuse of intelligence by consumers as was the case withrespect to war-related assessments in the Johnson and Bush Administrations;
Failures such as the failures to warn of the collapse of the Soviet Union andthe specific threat of 9/11;
Successes in piecing together tactical and often technical puzzles such as
estimates of Iranian nuclear program maturation; andStrategic victories such as anticipating critical geopolitical developmentsthat have been years in the making.

— 219 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

Historically, this tradecraft has been passed on in the form of unwritten rules
learned on the job and in agency-specific training classes, but increasingly since theintelligence reforms of 2004, they have been codified IC-wide under the directionof the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Mission Integration.
A RAND study of U.S. intelligence tradecraft notes that the “vast majority ofintelligence analysts reside outside the Central Intelligence Agency and do workthat is tactical, operational, and current.”35 The study goes on to note that the
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has as many analysts as the CIA has and that
the National Security Agency (NSA) has several times as many analysts, as does
the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), indicating both the breadthof the IC’s technical collection and its emphasis both on developing analysts who
can interpret secret human or technical intelligence in quick-turnaround pieces
and on countering tactical, asymmetric threats like terrorism.
During the Cold War, however, there was a more balanced analytic focus withgreater emphasis on strategic intelligence issues as a means of outcompeting theSoviet Union. This kind of analysis deals not only in secrets, but also in mysteries—making well-founded but ultimately unknowable predictions about future
actions by a competitor or adversary. The tradecraft necessary to succeed in strategic analysis requires substantive regional and topical expertise developed over
the years to supplement experience in the daily collection and understandingof secrets. Institutionally, it also requires that agencies’ analytic processes be
open to discussion, debate, and dissent because analysts must work together todescribe a probable range of future outcomes and warn about unproven current
threats rather than using the collection to solve a single puzzle with a definitive answer.
Regarding its mission to follow longer-term issues, the IC is falling short inresourcing and in openness to dissenting opinions, which (if taken seriously) can
help responsible officials respond more effectively to threats and threat actors.
The IC Analytic Ombudsman has expressed concern that hyperpartisanship “hasthreatened to undermine the foundations of our Republic, penetrating even into
the Intelligence Community.”36
For example, the Ombudsman noted in a report on the IC’s handling of election-threat analysis in 2020 that, in his view, CIA officials had deliberately
downplayed dissenting views and coordination comments expressed by experts
at the National Intelligence Council and elsewhere who felt there was evidence ofBeijing’s intent to exert at least some influence on the 2020 election as opposedto the consensus view that Beijing did not interfere in U.S. elections. Senior CIA
analysts and leaders made it “difficult to have a healthy analytic conversation ina confrontational environment” while violating multiple official IC tradecraft
standards. By not allowing dissents or considering alternatives, the CIA exercised“undue influence on intelligence.”37 Subsequent exposure of China-linked online— 220 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

influence and the FBI’s warnings about continued efforts through the 2022 midterms highlight the folly of undue certainty without consideration of alternatives.
On election influence and other controversial issues, such as the origin of
COVID-19, analysts at the most powerful intelligence agencies have increasingly
tended to use the leeway they have been given to insert their political views into
their work in order to influence (if possibly even control) the analytic process. They
do this in ways that attempt to squash dissent and impair the creation of a culture
in which entrenched views are challenged and unpopular analytical lines can survive or not according to their merits.
To help the United States and its leaders to outcompete China across multifaceted societal, economic, military, and technological threats, the IC’scapability to conduct strategic intelligence analysis that is relevant to policymakers in both parties must be rebuilt and strengthened. Because Beijing may be apeer or even exceed U.S. capabilities in some areas, the post-9/11 analytic focus
on quick-turnaround secrets is not good enough. Strategic planning—informed
by intelligence—must take place for the United States to stay ahead of whatever
new threats China may pose.
An incoming conservative President will have the opportunity to signal thedemand for such strategic products and prioritize their production throughcommunications to intelligence leaders and formal mechanisms such as shifting
priorities within the National Intelligence Priority Framework and structuring thePresident’s Daily Brief. The incoming DNI should also emphasize implementing
the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report, especially regarding objectivity, the inclusion of dissenting viewpoints, and more serious efforts to hold seniorleaders accountable for backchannel attempts to change or suppress analytic views.
Accounting for the long history of intelligence failures and surprises, an incoming conservative President must appreciate the ambiguity, complexity, limits, andassumptions inherent in intelligence assessments. Intelligence often deals with thehuman dimension in complex decision systems within a foreign country or organization, and this makes consistently accurate predictions difficult if not impossible
to develop. Seeing something and understanding what you are seeing are two different things, so a President should consistently and patiently press the IC about
its potential biases, assumptions, methodology, and sourcing.
With regard to election-threat analysis and politically controversial topics,
agency leaders should take seriously the Ombudsman’s admonition that we needto maintain tradecraft standards across all countries and topics by ensuring that
equitable standards apply across all foreign threat actors. Analysis should be put
forward without regard to the domestic political ramifications of intelligenceconclusions.
“Obligation to Share” and Real-Time Auditing Capability. The federal government has made admirable progress in recent years by being more

— 221 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

forward-leaning in sharing cyber threat intelligence with private-sector partners
and the public, emphasizing that the protective nature of such information is ofvalue only if put into the right hands at the right time. Since critical infrastructureand services are overwhelmingly owned, managed, and defended by the private
sector in the United States, there has been an increasing emphasis on declassifying intelligence and sharing actionable information with private-sector partners,
often through industry-specific Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs);regional meetings of government and private-sector experts called InfraGard, runby the FBI; direct public notification from the Department of Homeland Security,
the FBI, and (increasingly) the NSA; and more discreet one-on-one engagements
led by the collecting agencies.
These programs properly recognize the private sector’s role in providing cybersecurity for Americans; in practice, however, the intelligence shared by the U.S.
government through these venues is too often already known or no longer relevantby the time it makes its way through the downgrade process for sharing. In addition,
government-shared information often needs to take advantage of the opportunity
to provide contexts, such as attribution, trends, and size of the observed cyberproblem. As warranted, additional context should be provided to the private sector
as a matter of routine.
To continue improving the U.S. government’s ability to defend the country’s
most vital networks, the IC must adopt an “obligation to share” policy process,including the capacity for “write to release” intelligence products whereby
newly discovered technical indicators, targeting, and other intelligence relevant
to cyber defense are automatically provided either to the public or to targeted
entities within 48 hours of their collection—which is how counterterrorism intelligence has been managed for years when it comes to a “duty to warn.” Under thispolicy, agency heads should still have the flexibility to withhold intelligence for
operational or counterintelligence reasons but would need to report regularly
to Congress on the number of and justification for exceptions. This policy would
make sharing intelligence and defending networks the default, as it already is in
the rest of the cybersecurity community outside the IC, to improve the quantity,
relevance, and timeliness of defensive information while ensuring accountability
for top leaders when they must withhold this information.
One of the most significant challenges within the IC is presented by the need toshare information promptly among the 18 elements of the intelligence enterprise.
The only long-term solution to the understandable tension between the need toshare information and the need to protect intelligence sources and methods is arobust real-time auditing capability that electronically flags unauthorized access.
Under an identity management system with real-time audit, even the most sensitive information acquired by America’s intelligence agencies can be shared, and theaccess to and use of that information are appropriately monitored. Establishing— 222 —

2025 Presidential Transition Projecta real-time auditing capability is essential to decreasing the risk for the heads ofintelligence agencies in meeting their statutory requirements to ensure that theyprotect sources and methods associated with the classified information their agencies collect.
Overclassification. There is broad consensus across the U.S. government andamong stakeholders that the system for classifying, declassifying, and otherwise
marking and handling sensitive information is at a crossroads. Exorbitant amountsof classified data are created daily, and agency personnel often mistakenly choose
classification as the default selection to ensure national security. At the same time,the effectiveness of downgraded and carefully declassified information to support
foreign policy efforts has been borne out in, for example, alerting the broader worldof Russia’s buildup and likely plans for its invasion of Ukraine.
Two executive orders principally govern how the U.S. government handles classified and sensitive information.
ll

Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information,”
issued in 2009,38 prescribes the classification levels and procedures fordeclassification.
Executive Order 13556, “Controlled Unclassified Information,” issued in
2010,39 aimed to establish a uniform program for managing all unclassified
information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls.

The current system for declassifying classified national security information(CNSI) is extraordinarily analog, requiring experts’ review of individual records.
Declassification policies are based on human review of paper and need to contemplate and handle the proliferation and volume of digital records created byagencies. The U.S. government will soon reach the point at which manual review is
impossible. The declassification of CNSI should support key U.S. national security
objectives, reflect mission priorities, and not serve solely as a necessary procedural
function. Reforms should include:lllTighter definitions and greater specificity for categories of information
requiring protection.
More stringent policies to effect significant reductions in the number ofOriginal Classification Authorities (OCAs).
Stricter accountability measures at the OCA level and more detailed
security classification guides.

— 223 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative PromiselEnhanced metrics for accuracy of classification.

l

A general simplification of the overall system for the benefit of users.

On the back end, an ODNI-run declassification process that is faster, nimbler,
default-to-automated, and larger-scale should be a priority.
Additionally, investments in IT are required to deal with the growing volumesof CNSI collected and produced in the digital age, along with many years’ worth ofexisting analog and digital holdings that could provide valuable historical insights.
An incoming Administration needs to explore options to prioritize funding forinnovation in declassification management: for example, by establishing a budget
line item specifically for the modernization of declassification or designating funding for program classification management as a special-interest item.
The Administration will also need to transition to using technology, including
tools and services for managing Big Data (which provide a robust electronic record
repository, making information within and across agencies easier to organize andlocate and facilitating more rapid review and release capabilities for records ofemerging interest); artificial intelligence/machine learning (which, when incorporated into existing business practices, enables machine interpretation of
unstructured text and data, applies decision support technology to enable moreconsistent classification decisions, and expedites reviews between agencies); andexpansion of Commercial Cloud services (which facilitate the rapid testing anddeployment of new tools and technologies).
However, technology is not a panacea; human expertise in information holdings
and routine validation of the technology will always be necessary. With or without machine assistance, agencies will require more people and more varied skill
sets to improve their ability to meet the electronic records era’s classification anddeclassification demands and serve an incoming Administration’s goals.
Broader U.S. Government and IC Intelligence Needs. Increasingly, conflicts among U.S. adversaries such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are
conducted in the realms of technology and finance.40 This challenge requires new
tools, authorities, and technological expertise across the U.S. government, particularly at the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which
is housed at the Treasury Department.
An incoming conservative President should task his DNI and Secretary ofCommerce with increasing coordination, the resources needed for BIS and SCIF
capacity, and proper and necessary intelligence sharing to counter the activities ofmultifaceted adversaries such as China. This would include additional work withprivate-sector expertise, granting clearances to niche sector experts and UnitedStates citizen commercial and financial partners as needed.

— 224 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

Cover in the Digital Age. Even in the public domain, it is becoming increasingly clear that protecting the identities of undercover intelligence officers isdifficult in the digital age.41 The truth is that as our daily activities are conducted
predominantly in the digital domain, our antiquated system for providing cover toundercover officers has lagged woefully behind the threat from foreign adversaries.
The DIA, CIA, and FBI are increasingly aware of this threat and are devoting
resources to the problem. Their back-office infrastructure, however, is such thatthey are still using methods for providing cover from decades past that put valuable
intelligence officers at unnecessary risk. How intelligence officers and their families are taught to use smartphones and social media, travel, conduct banking, andtake and share pictures—even how and when they are paid—can make it difficult
to protect identities.42 Legends, fake backstories, and identities are often weak,
incomplete, and unable to stand up to a basic Google search.43 Officers operating under nonofficial cover are offered even less protection and training to help
them succeed.
In addition, ubiquitous technical surveillance (UTS) techniques being refined bytechnologies emanating from the regimes in China and Russia will continue to behighly challenging for intelligence officers. An incoming Administration will needto double down on resourcing and training so that members of the IC will have theexpertise they need to operate clandestinely (and successfully) against hard targets.
Privacy Shield. For many years, the European Union (EU) has tried to force U.S.
companies operating in Europe to follow its data privacy regulations. Misleading
claims in the 2013 Snowden leaks destroyed the initial Safe Harbor Framework44
that allowed American companies to transfer data across the Atlantic; its successor, the Privacy Shield Framework,45 was struck down by European courts on the
grounds that it provides insufficient protections for EU citizens against hypothetical U.S. government surveillance. Those same European courts exempted theintelligence services of EU member states from the standards applied to the U.S.,
suggesting that trade protectionism may be the real motive behind data privacy
regulations.
In 2022, the Biden Administration negotiated a new agreement, the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework,46 intended to withstand European legal challenges.
Given the fate of its predecessors, it is not certain that it will survive. Executive
Order 14086, “Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activities,”47 implements this new framework by attempting to align signals intelligencecollection practices with European privacy regulations. At most, the executive
order’s changes will be helpful support for the framework in future European
litigation; at worst, they could throw sand in the gears of important intelligence programs.
An incoming conservative President should reset Europe’s expectations. Brussels has always arbitraged the difference between being a military ally against, for— 225 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

example, Russia and conducting a full-blown trade conflict with the United States.
Restrictions on data exports have been part of the trade conflict, but now they could
seriously harm our military and intelligence capabilities. Moreover, restrictions
on U.S. intelligence collection hurt the Europeans themselves, especially as theUnited States shares unprecedented amounts of intelligence on Russia’s invasionof Ukraine with Europeans.48
Europe is telling the United States to meet intelligence oversight standards
that no European country meets. At the same time, exports of data to China areunexamined and (so far) free from legal challenges. That violates World Trade
Organization agreements as an arbitrary and discriminatory data protection standard. It is a betrayal by a nominally allied jurisdiction. European court rulings thatstruck down prior data privacy frameworks were grounded not in constitutionallaw but in a treaty among European nations. If the EU accepted an international
agreement that data may flow to the United States under a more reasonable standard than the one adopted by the court, that interpretation would be binding, atleast as a gloss on the earlier treaty.
The United States has never seriously pushed back against the EU; now is thetime. An incoming President should ask for an immediate study of the implementation of Executive Order 14086 and suspend any provisions that unduly burden
intelligence collection. At the same time, in negotiations with the Europeans, theUnited States should make clear that the continued sharing of intelligence with
EU member states depends on successful resolution of this issue within the firsttwo years of a President’s term. It is time for a real solution, not the 30 years of
stopgaps imposed by Brussels.
President’s Daily Brief (PDB). An incoming conservative President shouldmake clear what the President’s Daily Brief is and is not. The PDB should be for
the President specifically, with a much narrower distribution and addressing areasof strategic concern. During the transition, the future National Security Advisor,along with the DNI, should conduct a review of current PDB recipients and determine which should remain recipients when the President’s term begins.
Instead of being used as the statement of record for the agencies, the PDB often
misses the areas of interest for Presidents and their senior advisers. The President
should want the PDB to focus on providing the information needed for the often
imperfect and complex decisions that a President needs to make, which should
always be based on the best intelligence that can be gathered. Where consensus
and agreement are possible, an IC-coordinated product is excellent, but insights
provided by properly channeled dissent can lead a President to ask relevant questions of his DNI and IC.
A future DNI determines the PDB briefer based on recommendations made by
the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Mission Integration (MI). Historically, briefers have come from the CIA, but a future President and DNI should— 226 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

consider a primary briefer or a rotation of briefers from other IC elements. Additionally, the entirety of the PDB staff and production should be located at ODNI.
National Intelligence Council (NIC). The National Intelligence Council is
the IC’s premier analytic organization and includes more than a dozen National
Intelligence Officers (NIOs), each of whom leads the IC’s analysis within a regional(China, Russia, Iran, etc.) or functional (cyber, counterproliferation, economics,etc.) mission area. This includes authoring National Intelligence Estimates on
major strategic issues with the entire IC, overseeing and deconflicting the annual
analytic plans of each agency, and weighing in on day-to-day major analytical issues,
sometimes individually (for example, by writing the NIC’s strategic memos or providing detailed expert briefings to the President before major decisions).
Historically part of the CIA, the NIC was reorganized into the ODNI as was
the PDB. It retains the CIA’s objective analytic culture and is staffed primarily
with CIA officers; however, as many as 25 percent of its NIOs over the decades
have come from academia or the private sector, bringing in much-needed outside
expertise to collate and understand intelligence with perspective and skills thatare not necessarily nurtured within the IC. In recent years, there has been a greater
emphasis on encouraging officers from other agencies—particularly the DIA, NSA,
and FBI—to serve as NIOs or as their deputies.
To encourage greater analytic independence and debate, the incoming Administration should require that non-CIA officers comprise at least 50 percent of the
NIC’s membership and that the first-among-equals NIC Chairman is an outsider
from one of the three major IC agencies with reporting responsibility to the PDDNI.
Opening these senior analytic roles to the best analysts regardless of agency would
also encourage the continued maturation of analytic cadres and tradecraft at thoseagencies and give them an equal voice in interagency analytical disputes, which inturn would give the President access to the best thinking and a variety of sources
and perspectives from across the entire IC rather than from the CIA alone.
IC Chief Information Officer. The Intelligence Community Chief Information Officer (ICCIO) directs and oversees all aspects of the classified IT budget for
all of the IC’s 18 elements. As the DNI’s principal adviser for technology, the ICCIO
must be well-versed in technology, acquisitions, operations, and intra-agency cooperation to advance our technical prowess and simultaneously direct a bureaucracy
that, left unchecked, will serve each element’s own preferences. To ensure thatprocured and implemented technology and policy reflect the Administration’s
agenda, the ICCIO must have the support of the DNI and possess the ability tocommand cooperation between and promote interoperability across IC members.
Because of the unique responsibilities entrusted to this position, incumbency
has seesawed between political appointees and career civilians; due to its congressionally capped salary, the position is often filled by an SES-level member
administratively detailed to support the DNI. At times, the ICCIO is incorrectly— 227 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promisereferred to as the ODNI CIO. By law, and to secure unbiased execution across all of
the IC’s 18 elements, the same individual may not serve as ICCIO and ODNI CIO.
They are two distinct positions.
Critical areas and IC IT portfolio priorities for the ICCIO include but are
not limited to:lllTransparent accounting and allocation of IT investments across the IC,
including commercial cloud computing and storage (C2E);
Recognized and uniform security access for people, systems, and capabilities
to enable interoperability across IC elements;
5G/6G data transmission and network interoperability, which is vital to IC
element operations;lArtificial intelligence and machine learning;lQuantum cryptography and post-quantum encryption (PQE); andlCybersecurity infrastructure where Biden Administration changes haverealigned and reassigned management oversight and IT architecture
responsibilities to NSA and DHS/CISA, conflicting with ICCIOdelineated roles.

An incoming Administration should appoint the ICCIO as a primary memberof the DNI staff along with the ODNI General Counsel, IC Chief Financial Officer,
and ODNI Chief Operating Officer.
The President-Elect should require immediate reviews of the progress in implementing post-quantum encryption at a minimum for IC and Defense systems but
preferably throughout the government. The President’s National Security Memorandum specifying “the goal of mitigating as much of the quantum risk as is feasibleby 2035”49 needs to be revised in light of the magnitude of the threat. Accounting
for the investment that will be needed to secure IT systems for national security
should be a top priority.
ODNI, CIA, and IC Technology Issues. In recent years, the IC has had amandate from multiple Administrations to advance technology needs for intelligence—needs that have seen massive changes as a result of such threats as China’s
advancements in technology and data infrastructure. Many of the projects coming
out of ODNI and CIA’s Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) focus on expensive, AI-driven open-source work, but there is likely duplication of effort in areas
where the private sector and entrepreneurs are already making progress.

— 228 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

The Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) and S&T should
focus primarily on challenging technology problems. Avoiding duplication of what
is already being done well in the private sector in such areas as practical defense
cyber intelligence and artificial intelligence research would help to focus the agencies on the complex shadow tasks at hand while simultaneously freeing limited
resources for advancement in other areas.
President’s Intelligence Advisory Board and PIAB Intelligence Oversight
Board. The President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) is charged with providing the President with an independent source of advice on the IC’s effectivenesswhile offering insights into the IC’s future plans. The Board is meant to have accessto all information needed to perform its functions and to have direct access to the
President. The Intelligence Oversight Board is a standing committee within the
PIAB. These entities should be tasked with giving independent, informed advice
and opinion concerning major matters of national security focused on long-term,
enduring issues central to advancing and protecting American interests. Thisshould include taking a broader, deeper look at critical trends, developments, andtheir implications for U.S. national and economic security relying on unclassified
and open-source information.
The Importance of Space. With China developing increasingly capable spaceand counterspace technologies and Russia taking more aggressive action in space,
space has emerged as the latest warfighting domain. In response, the DNI created the Office of the Space Executive (OSX) in 2018 as an experiment to promote
greater integration of IC space activities without incurring excessive overhead.
The DNI mandated greater collaboration across the enterprise without adding
personnel, altering authorities, and increasing budgets.
The Space Executive’s design reflects the original design principles of the ODNI.
The ODNI was explicitly not designed to be a departmental headquarters with command and control of the 18 agencies’ vast bureaucracies. Rather, it was designed
to be small and lightweight with a mission to coordinate and integrate the critical activities of the IC’s 18 agencies without creating new bureaucracy. That goal
should remain in force, and calls by outside entities or Congress to add new centersand layers should be rejected.
The Office of the Space Executive has been recognized as an effective governancemodel and has spawned similar efforts, including the Election Threats Executive,
Economic and Threat Finance Executive, and Cyber Executive. With this in mind,
the following initiatives should be pursued:lExpand collaboration with partners. For too many decades, theIC and DOD have acquired and operated satellites independently. To
improve their ability to meet the threat posed by China and Russia, the IC
and DOD should:— 229 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

1.

Explore new methods for better integrating our space assets,

2. Examine the possibility of joint programs, and3. Fully utilize unique Title 10 and Title 50 authorities to execute space
defense (and offense) strategies jointly.
Additionally, the IC should support building international alliances withlike-minded partners beyond the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing nations.
Increasingly, potential allied nations (and their commercial companies) aredeveloping innovative space capabilities to augment and strengthen the U.S.
space defense and intelligence posture.
l

Refocus space-related intelligence collection. The IC has developed aspace threats collection posture predicated on three assumptions:1.

The best information on developing space threats comes from collection
against the adversaries’ military institutions on Earth,

2. There should be a clear dividing line between DOD’s intelligence
activities and the IC’s, and
3. Only government-developed “exquisite” capabilities can inform threat
analysis and decision-making effectively.
Developments by our adversaries and the emergence of a vibrantcommercial space marketplace over the past decade have rendered all threeassumptions false and even dangerous. The IC must therefore refocus andinvest in methods that will enable it to characterize accurately the threatsthat already exist in space, not just on the ground; break down barriers
to information sharing and collaboration with the DOD; and embracecommercially derived capabilities that can be adapted to a national security
mission—all while emphasizing the need to protect critical supply chains
and the cybersecurity needs that result from an increasingly government–commercial low Earth orbit.
Our nation’s economic and national security depends on being able toadvance America’s leadership position in space, which is eroding in the faceof increasing threats from adversaries and our own inaction.

— 230 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

AN UNFINISHED EXPERIMENTThe Intelligence Community, including specifically the role of the DNI andODNI, is an unfinished experiment. The envisioned design principle was a conservative one: a small, network-centric model for enterprise coordination as opposed
to a large monolithic bureaucracy like DHS. The ODNI, however, has reverted
in some ways to a bureaucratic and hierarchical model characterized by limited
effectiveness.
Historically, the CIA has undercut the DNI and maintains primacy in the IC
hierarchy, especially regarding the White House. An incoming conservative President can right the ship and return the IC governance model to first principles
by using a limited but empowered leadership and coordination design to serve
the nation’s intelligence and national security needs while reclaiming the publictrust with fiscal responsibility, political neutrality, personnel accountability, technological prowess, and necessary human capital needed to counter the immense
nation-state and asymmetrical threats facing our country.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in

the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. No particular policy statement, reform recommendation, or other viewexpressed herein should be attributed to any individual contributor or to the author.

— 231 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise
ENDNOTES

1.

2.

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

14.

15.
16.
17.
18.

“Two independent agencies—the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA); Nine Department of Defense elements—the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA),
the National Security Agency (NSA), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and intelligence elements of the five DoD services; the Army, Navy, Marine
Corps, Air Force, and Space Force. Seven elements of other departments and agencies—the Department ofEnergy’s Office of Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence; the Department of Homeland Security’s Office ofIntelligence and Analysis and U.S. Coast Guard Intelligence; the Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Agency’s Office of National Security Intelligence; the Department ofState’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; and the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Intelligence andAnalysis.” Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “What We Do: Members of the IC,” https://www.dni.
gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic (accessed March 8, 2023).
Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “Mission,” https://www.intelligence.gov/mission#:~:text=The%20
Intelligence%20Community's%20mission%20is,law%20enforcement%2C%20and%20the%20military(accessed February 24, 2023).
Abraham Lincoln, Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/
documents/second-annual-message-9 (accessed March 6, 2023).
Christopher Porter, “Seven Questions the Next President Will Need the Intelligence Community to Answer
to Win the Technology Competition with China,” LinkedIn, March 14, 2023, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/
seven-questions-next-president-need-intelligence-community-porter/?trackingId=Dl9RF5CnSwWnAO7r9gg
HiQ%3D%3D (accessed March 18, 2023).
H.R. 2845, Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Public Law No. 108-458, 108th Congress,
December 17, 2004, https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ458/PLAW-108publ458.pdf (accessed
March 6, 2004).
Testimony of Philip Zelikow, Executive Director, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the UnitedStates, in hearing, Assessing America’s Counterterrorism’s Capabilities, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, 108th Congress, 2d Session, August 3, 2004, p. 55, https://ia802906.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.
gpo.fdsys.CHRG-108shrg95506/CHRG-108shrg95506.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023).
Michael Allen, Blinking Red: Crisis and Compromise in American Intelligence After 9/11 (Dulles, VA: Potomac
Books, 2013), p. 155; Interview with Robert Gates, April 19, 2012.
Allen, Blinking Red, p. 154; Robert Gates e-mail to Andy Card, January 11, 2005; handwritten note from Robert
Gates, January 20, 2005.
Interview with John Ratcliffe, December 15, 2022.
Ibid.
Ibid.
S. 258, National Security Act of 1947, Public Law No. 80-253, 80th Congress, July 26, 1947, https://govtrackus.
s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/61/STATUTE-61-Pg495.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023).
President Ronald Reagan, Executive Order 12333, “United States Intelligence Activities,” December 4, 1981, inFederal Register, Vol. 46, No. 235 (December 8, 1981), pp. 59941–59954, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
pkg/FR-1981-12-08/pdf/FR-1981-12-08.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023).
President George W. Bush, Executive Order 13470, “Further Amendments to Executive Order 12333, UnitedStates Intelligence Activities,” July 30, 2008, in Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 150 (August 4, 2008), pp.
45325–45342, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008-08-04/pdf/E8-17940.pdf (accessed March
6, 2023). See also President George W. Bush, Executive Order 13355, “Strengthened Management of
the Intelligence Community,” August 27, 2004, in Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 169 (September 1, 2004),
pp. 53593–53597, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2004-09-01/pdf/04-20051.pdf (accessed
March 6, 2023).
U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, “Trusted Workforce 2.0 andContinuous Vetting,” https://www.dcsa.mil/mc/pv/cv/ (accessed March 9, 2023).
50 U.S. Code § 3093(e), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3093 (accessed February 24, 2023).
50 U.S. Code § 3093(a).
50 U.S. Code § 3093(a)(4).

— 232 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project
19. Michael E. DeVine, “Covert Action and Clandestine Activities of the Intelligence Community: Selected
Definitions,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. R45175,
updated November 29, 2022, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/intel/R45175.pdf (accessed February 24, 2023).
20. H.R. 2663, Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, Public Law No. 81-110, 81st Congress, June 20, 1949, https://
govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/63/STATUTE-63-Pg208.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023).
21. Nicole Ogrysko, “Intelligence Community Workforce Is More Diverse, but Still Struggles with Retention andPromotion,” Federal News Network, October 27, 2021, https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2021/10/
intelligence-community-workforce-is-more-diverse-but-still-struggles-with-retention-and-promotion/(accessed March 18, 2023).
22. See James J. Wirtz, “The Intelligence Policy Nexus,” in Loch K. Johnson, ed., Strategic Intelligence, Volume
1: Understanding the Hidden Side of Government (Westport, CT: Prager, 2007), and Richard K. Betts,“Analysis, War, and Decision: Why Intelligence Failures Are Inevitable,” World Politics, Vol. 30, No. 1 (October1978), pp. 61–89.
23. Letter from Barry A. Zulauf, IC Analytic Ombudsman, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, toSenator Marco Rubio, Acting Chairman, and Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chairman, Select Committee onIntelligence, U.S. Senate, “RE: SSCI #2020-3029,” January 6, 2021, https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/
ic-ombudsman-election-interference-with-responses/c50e548011fd6168/full.pdf (accessed March 14, 2023).
24. Joshua Rovner, Fixing the Facts: National Security and the Politics of Intelligence (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 2011), pp. 30–31.
25. Joshua Rovner, “Is Politicization Ever a Good Thing?” Intelligence and National Security, Vol. 28, No. 1(2013), p. 58.
26. S. 1566, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Public Law No. 95-511, 95th Congress, October
25, 1978, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1783.pdf (accessed
March 6, 2023).
27. The Cipher Brief, “702 Reauthorization: Defending a Key Intelligence Tool,” remarks of Benjamin Powell,former General Counsel to the Director of National Intelligence, stating that FISA 702 provides “between
40 and 60 percent” of the intelligence in the PDB, December 18, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=mRJ09GHVRFk&ab_channel=TheCipherBrief (accessed March 18, 2023).
28. An intelligence alliance that includes Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the UnitedStates. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National Counterintelligence and Security Center, “FiveEyes Intelligence Oversight and Review Council (FIORC),” https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ncsc-how-wework/217-about/organization/icig-pages/2660-icig-fiorc (accessed March 10, 2023).
29. Porter, “Seven Questions the Next President Will Need the Intelligence Community to Answer to Win theTechnology Competition with China.”
30. H.R. 1591, An Act to Require the Registration of Certain Persons Employed by Agencies to Disseminate
Propaganda in the United States and for Other Purposes, Public Law No. 75-583, 75th Congress, June 8, 1938,
https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/52/STATUTE-52-Pg631.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023).
31. Kristina Wong, “Exclusive: Former DNI John Ratcliffe Pleased CIA Following His Lead on China Threat,”
Breitbart, October 13, 2021, https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/10/13/exclusive-john-ratcliffe-pleasedcia-following-lead-china-threat/ (accessed March 11, 2023).
32. H.R. 4628, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law No. 107-306, 107th Congress,
November 27, 2002, Title IX, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-116/pdf/STATUTE-116-Pg2383.pdf(accessed March 6, 2023).
33. President George W. Bush, Executive Order 13354, “National Counterterrorism Center,” August 27, 2004, inFederal Register, Vol. 69, No. 169 (September 1, 2004), pp. 53589–53592, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
pkg/FR-2004-09-01/pdf/04-20050.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023).
34. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National Counterintelligence and Security Center, “WhoWe Are: History of NCSC,” https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ncsc-who-we-are/ncsc-history (accessed
March 11, 2023).
35. Gregory F. Treverton and C. Bryan Gabbard, Assessing the Tradecraft of Intelligence Analysis, RAND
Corporation, National Security Research Division Technical Report, 2008, p. 6, https://www.rand.org/pubs/
technical_reports/TR293.html (accessed March 1, 2023).

— 233 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise
36. Letter from Barry A. Zulauf, IC Analytic Ombudsman, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, toSenator Marco Rubio, Acting Chairman, and Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chairman, Select Committee onIntelligence, U.S. Senate, “RE: SSCI #2020-3029,” January 6, 2021, https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/
ic-ombudsman-election-interference-with-responses/c50e548011fd6168/full.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023).
37. “Independent IC Analytic Ombudsman’s [Report] on Politicization of Intelligence,” attached to January 6,
2021, Zulauf letter.
38. President Barack Obama, Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information,” December 29,
2009, in Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 2 (January 5, 2010), pp. 707–731, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
FR-2010-01-05/pdf/E9-31418.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023).
39. President Barack Obama, Executive Order 13556, “Controlled Classified Information,” November 4, 2010, inFederal Register, Vol. 75, No. 216 (November 9, 2010), pp. 68675–68677, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
pkg/FR-2010-11-09/pdf/2010-28360.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023).
40. Agathe Demarais, “How the U.S.–Chinese Technology War Is Changing the World,” Foreign Policy, November
19, 2022, https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/19/demarais-backfire-sanctions-us-china-technology-warsemiconductors-export-controls-biden/ (accessed February 28, 2023).
41. Scott Stewart, “The Risk to Undercover Operatives in the Digital Age,” Stratfor Worldview, October 29, 2015,
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/risk-undercover-operatives-digital-age (accessed February 24, 2023).
42. Lauren Pitruzzello, “Human Intelligence: Former CIA Officer Talks About Espionage in the Digital Age,
University of Delaware UDaily, March 22, 2012, https://www1.udel.edu/udaily/2012/mar/global-agendagrenier-032212.html (accessed February 24, 2023).
43. Jenna McLaughlin and Zach Dorfman, “‘Shattered’: Inside the Secret Battle to Save America’s UndercoverSpies in the Digital Age,” Yahoo News, December 30, 2019, https://news.yahoo.com/shattered-insidethe-secret-battle-to-save-americas-undercover-spies-in-the-digital-age-100029026.html (accessed
February 24, 2023).
44. U.S. Federal Trade Commission, “U.S.–Safe Harbor Framework,” https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/
privacy-security/us-eu-safe-harbor-framework (accessed March 11, 2023).
45. “Fact Sheet: Overview of the EU–U.S. Privacy Shield Network,” U.S. Department of Commerce,
https://2014-2017.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/media/files/2016/eu-us_privacy_shield_fact_
sheet.pdf (accessed March 11, 2023).
46. “Fact Sheet: United States and European Commission Announce Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework,” The
White House, March 25, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/25/
fact-sheet-united-states-and-european-commission-announce-trans-atlantic-data-privacy-framework/(accessed March 11, 2023).
47. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14086, “Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals
Intelligence Activities,” October 7, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 198 (October 14, 2022), pp. 62283–
62297, (accessed March 7, 2023).
48. Warren P. Strobel, “Release of Ukraine Intelligence Represents New Front in U.S. Information War with Russia,”
The Wall Street Journal, updated April 4, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/release-of-secrets-representsnew-front-in-u-s-information-war-with-russia-11649070001 (accessed February 24, 2023).
49. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., “National Security Memorandum on Promoting United States Leadership in
Quantum Computing While Mitigating Risks to Vulnerable Cryptographic Systems,” The White House, May
4, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/04/national-securitymemorandum-on-promoting-united-states-leadership-in-quantum-computing-while-mitigating-risksto-vulnerable-cryptographic-systems/#:~:text=To%20mitigate%20this%20risk%2C%20the%20United%20
States%20must,the%20quantum%20risk%20as%20is%20feasible%20by%202035 (accessed March 12, 2023).
See also President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14073, “Enhancing the National Quantum Initiative
Advisory Committee,” May 4, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 89 (May 9, 2022), pp. 27909–27911, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-05-09/pdf/2022-10076.pdf (accessed March 12, 2023); and “Fact
Sheet: President Biden Announces Two Presidential Directives Advancing Quantum Technologies,” The WhiteHouse, May 4, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/04/factsheet-president-biden-announces-two-presidential-directives-advancing-quantum-technologies/ (accessed
March 12, 2023).

— 234 —