Why Define Intelligence?

Frederic Baron

For more than a half-century, government leaders, intelligence 

practitioners, and scholars have sought to define and redefine 

intelligence in the national security sense. The effectiveness of the US 

Intelligence Community (IC), without consensus on this basic term,

begs the question: Does defining intelligence matter? The answer is an

emphatic yes. Defining intelligence is critical for the IC and the 

nascent intelligence studies discipline. Achieving agreement on what 

intelligence is would better focus IC missions, authorities, resources, 

and oversight. Moreover, understanding what it should be is essential

to envisioning and achieving an efficacious future intelligence 

enterprise to enable sound decisions in a rapidly changing world.

RESEARCH SHORT

March 28, 2024

What this is:

This report is the product 

of academic research. As the 

IC’s university, NIU is uniquely 

positioned to use academic 

approaches to research—and 

report on—subjects of interest 

to the community.

What this is not:

This is not finished intelligence. 

The opinions expressed in this 

report are solely the author’s 

and not those of National 

Intelligence University, or any 

other US Government agency.

IMAGE FROM SHUTTERSTOCK

CATALYST Designed to spark positive 

conversations on the future of the IC 
2

The Challenge of Defining Intelligence

Historian Michael Warner observes that “smart and well-meaning people differ over the very 

definition of intelligence.”1 Authors of academic and other nonfiction volumes and articles 

about intelligence, therefore, nearly always explain what they mean by the term. While there 

are official and scholarly definitions, they vary considerably and have changed over time. 

Listing and analyzing those various definitions could fill a book, but their limitations and the 

lack of consensus are well-known.

Looking to the IC for a definition of its own work is one place to start. The website of the 

Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) posits that intelligence is certain

“information,” 2a position that is neither universally accepted nor particularly clear. That

definition is derived, but different, from definitions of “national 

intelligence” and its component “foreign intelligence” that are 

included in the National Security Act of 1947. Although both 

of these definitions include the term “intelligence,” that term is 

not defined.3

Intelligence scholars and both current and former practitioners 

have devoted considerable effort to answering the question, “What 

is intelligence?”

4 They have proposed not only definitions, but 

also explicit and intentional redefinitions of intelligence.5 Notable 

examples include: the Consortium for the Study of Intelligence’s 

1992 Working Group on Intelligence Reform, featuring papers by 

Jennifer Sims and Abram Shulsky; a 2005 conference convened by the Assistant DNI for 

Policy and Strategy and RAND that also brought together practitioners and academics;

6

the resultant report and book, Intelligence Theory: Key Questions and Debates;

7

and a 2023

International Studies Association workshop on defining intelligence and its place in the 

international relations literature.

The range of definitions of intelligence proposed by scholars, practitioners, and policies over 

the years, in the above and many other sources, contains overlapping or even contradictory 

concepts. These include:

• Espionage (now called human intelligence, or HUMINT), a definition that sometimes 

adds other forms of intelligence collection or includes all five collection disciplines

(HUMINT, signals intelligence, geospatial intelligence, measurement and signals 

intelligence, and open-source intelligence).

• The activities of organizations within the Intelligence Community, including intelligence 

analysis and collection and sometimes covert action or influence operations.

• Information (or a term that includes information), or a subset of information relating to 

the military or various ideas of national security.

• Secrets or information from all sources.

“Intelligence is information gathered 

within or outside the US that involves 

threats to our nation, its people, 

property, or interests; development, 

proliferation, or use of weapons of 

mass destruction; and any other 

matter bearing on the US national or 

homeland security.”

– ODNI, “What Is Intelligence?”
3

• Knowledge of facts.

• Analysis, including insights.

• Predictions, warnings of threats, and, for some, opportunities.

• Products, usually written but also briefings.

• Relationships with customers, drawing on knowledge that supports policies or is 

independent of policies and “speaks truth to power.”

• Communication that provides decision advantage for national security policymakers or 

operational advantage for military and other operators.

Adding to the muddle is the increasingly relevant acknowledgement that intelligence exists 

outside the IC and outside the government. Some scholars have responded by arguing that the 

intelligence activities sponsored by sovereign powers differ not just in degree, but in kind, from 

(lawful) intelligence undertaken by private or corporate entities.

8

Although decades of scholarship have advanced the discussion of intelligence, they have not 

yielded an effective, unifying concept. “None of the definitions that I have seen work,” wrote 

the late David Kahn. “It is like the term ‘news.’ Though all but impossible to define, every 

journalist knows what it is....”9In fact, as Stephen Marrin observed in 2016, there is, as 

of yet, no consensus on the definition or purpose 

of intelligence. 10 What a CIA officer, under the 

pseudonym Martin Bimfort, wrote in a 1956 volume 

of Studies in Intelligence remains true today: 

“Definitions carefully formulated by intelligence 

experts do exist, but all seem deficient in one respect 

or another; the concept remains as sprawling and 

thorny as a briar patch.”11

Why Define Intelligence?

Philip Davies notes that, “It is entirely possible that 

by asking ‘What is intelligence?’ we may be barking 

up the wrong intellectual tree.”

12 Why does the 

described lack of clarity and consensus on the 

meaning of intelligence matter? Potential gains from developing a better understanding, and 

perhaps even a clearer definition, of intelligence would extend across a broad range of 

intelligence activities and beyond. Here are some to consider:

Mission Focus

The effectiveness of US intelligence is often said to rest on IC professionals’ mission focus. So, 

what is their mission? According to the ODNI, “The US Intelligence Community provides 

Source: Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 67, No. 3 (September 2023).

Figure 1. Word cloud from A New Quantitative Approach 

to an Old Question
4

timely, rigorous, apolitical, and insightful intelligence and support to inform national security 

decisions and protect our Nation and its interests.”13 Mission is first among the Principles of 

Professional Ethics for the Intelligence Community, along with aspects one might more readily 

consider ethics, such as truth, lawfulness, and integrity.14 If the mission is to provide intelligence 

and support (within some bounds and purposes), we need to understand what intelligence is—

and what it is not—to best focus efforts and resources. Simply put, better defining intelligence 

would improve the IC’s mission focus and effectiveness, now and in the future.

Authorities and Oversight

The laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies relating to intelligence grant explicit 

authorities for a range of activities. Sometimes their intention is to limit activities, particularly 

to protect privacy and civil liberties. An agreed upon understanding of intelligence would 

clarify IC authorities and help build public understanding and trust of the IC.

The National Security Act of 1947, as amended, stipulates that, “The President shall ensure 

that the Congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the 

intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence 

activity as required by this title.”15 This and other oversight mandates rely on an understanding 

of “intelligence activities.” The oversight question becomes thornier if one considers concepts 

of intelligence that are not limited to the government, especially with the possibility of the 

government gaining the results of such nongovernmental intelligence activities.

Collaboration and Deconfliction

In his 1956 Studies in Intelligence article, Martin Bimfort observed that, “[M]isunderstandings 

within and without the Intelligence Community often result from incompatible understandings 

of the meaning of the word intelligence. Moreover, the assignment and coordination of 

functions, responsibilities, and relationships among the members of the Community must rest 

upon an agreed interpretation of this word in the laws and directives which govern our work.”16

Executive Order 12333, which provides authorities to many intelligence agencies, is of little 

help in bounding the concept. The document broadly defines intelligence activities as “all 

activities that agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to conduct pursuant 

to this Order.”17 In other words, anything any intelligence agency or element can legally do is 

within the scope of intelligence activities—even if those same activities are done by entities 

outside the IC as well.

Indeed, the National Security Act and modern practice reflect an acceptance that there is 

government intelligence—including departmental intelligence and law enforcement 

intelligence—that is not national intelligence. Thus, the authorities question also arises with 

respect to the prerogatives of other US Government departments and agencies. A better 

understanding of what intelligence is, and is not, could improve understanding and reduce 

duplication and friction within the US Government.
5

Bounding Customer Expectations

Intelligence is often defined as information or knowledge, or as a subset of these. The IC often 

addresses questions posed by policy and operational customers, from the President to the 

foxhole. Clarity on the role of intelligence could help the IC manage customer expectations. 

As Wilhelm Agrell put it, “When everything is intelligence—nothing is intelligence.”18 In 

particular, should the IC be the verified, classified “Wikipedia” for all questions from the 

National Security Council and its staff and agencies, providing even information readily 

available online or from other agencies or foreign partners?

Although many definitions of intelligence include information, the IC has neither the resources 

nor the expertise to be the source of any and all information. Defining intelligence might help 

the IC fend off inquiries that are not intelligence, questions that should be directed elsewhere. 

Our concept of national security is expansive and expanding, as reflected in the most recent 

National Security Strategy and National Intelligence Strategy. Defining what intelligence is—

and what it is not—may help to scope questions in ways that make the intelligence mission 

more feasible by bounding it.

Enabling Partnerships

National security intelligence is not something the IC can do effectively on its own; it relies on 

other government agencies, foreign counterparts, and the private sector. The diversity of uses 

and meanings for the word intelligence—for example, in law enforcement intelligence or 

business intelligence (now often called competitive intelligence)—may impede effective 

partnerships. Philip Davies observed that “profound differences emerge within two closely 

related and closely integrated intelligence communities, which also share a common language 

and political culture. If Britain and the United States differ so widely and fundamentally, what 

about systems that are less cognate?”19

Better defining intelligence should enable the IC to partner more effectively at home—and 

abroad. This potential for greater cooperation suggests it will be important to engage with our 

partners, and with their usages and understandings of intelligence, as we consider definitions.

Scholarship

At least since Sherman Kent published Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy in 

1949, there have been efforts to develop intelligence as a field of academic scholarship. Kent 

articulated this idea most clearly in a 1955 article (publicly released in 1993) on “The Need for 

an Intelligence Literature.” He stressed that, “In most respects the intelligence calling has come 

of age,” but then asserted that, “[Y]ou are unlikely to have a robust and growing discipline 

without” a literature.20 As Peter Gill noted during the 2005 ODNI/RAND conference, “A good 

theory of intelligence should, by definition, be useful for intelligence.”21 Michael Warner 

cautioned, however, that deriving a theory requires first defining intelligence.

22

Since Kent’s writings, academic study and literature on intelligence has grown considerably, and 

the focus has broadened beyond merely study that would benefit the IC.

23 A decade ago, Tobias 
6

Vogt wrote an article that attempts to answer the question of whether intelligence studies warrant 

inclusion as a discipline within higher education. Among the criteria from Armin Krishnan that 

Vogt applies are, “a particular object of research” and “specific terminologies or a specific 

technical language adjusted to their research object.” Thus, an understanding of the term 

intelligence is essential to the development of intelligence studies as an academic discipline. 

Better defining intelligence would certainly advance this cause, especially as Vogt’s broad 

definition is unlikely to achieve broad consensus. He posits that, “In the case of intelligence 

studies, ‘intelligence’ is the object of research. This may include the term ‘information,’ but in 

the public and private sectors, information and intelligence are often used interchangeably.”24

Education and Training

If intelligence is a profession, or even a set of professions as Bo Miller has recently argued, 

then surely education and training are needed to advance the requisite knowledge and skills.

25

My own institution, National Intelligence University, and a growing number of other 

institutions of higher learning in the United States, UK, and elsewhere offer education on 

intelligence. IC agencies and elements and nongovernment entities also provide training aimed 

at improving the effectiveness of intelligence professionals or those who aspire to become 

intelligence professionals. Getting the education and training right surely requires an 

understanding of what intelligence is and whether it is one or more than one profession. One 

arguably needs an anticipatory or even normative definition for this purpose: What will 

intelligence be, or what should it be in the future?

Conceiving the Future Intelligence Enterprise

The future is arguably the most important reason to seek greater understanding and consensus 

on the meaning of intelligence. A substantial and growing literature—mostly from current or 

former intelligence practitioners, but also from academics—calls for reform, reinvention, 

revolution, or transformation of the IC. Yet, as the 2005 ODNI/RAND conference concluded:

[E]ven among those who might agree on the need for intelligence reform or 

“revolutionary change,’ it is difficult to agree on a course or even courses of 

action. While many observers can list current problems, the divergence of their 

views over the very essence of intelligence hampers agreement on what is 

essentially wrong, how it can be changed, and whether changing it will make 

any significant difference in national security outcomes.26

To design and develop the future intelligence enterprise, we need to know what purpose(s), 

role(s), and customers intelligence should serve. This will require overcoming the many 

definitions of intelligence that are based on current IC activities, sources and methods, 

organizations, and products, because these may constrain or even impede developing an 

intelligence enterprise for the future global environment. In addition, we must eschew 

definitions that are too broad, like the common assertions that intelligence is information or 

knowledge, as they do not differentiate national security intelligence.
7

Informing the development of the future intelligence enterprise requires understanding what 

national security intelligence is, including how it has changed over time, and then going

further—to consider potential futures. We will need to understand how our mission will evolve, 

as well as the external context, to perform our future mission well.

This purpose, more than any other, requires practitioners and scholars to observe changes in 

the global security environment, in the IC itself, among our customers and their missions, in

new and emerging technologies and organizational constructs—and what capabilities they may 

enable—and in society as a whole. Considering intelligence in other nations and by nonstate 

actors would be beneficial, if only to assess what we have in common and what distinguishes 

the US IC. Beyond understanding what intelligence has been and will become, we need to 

consider what intelligence could—or should—be in the future.

Revisiting First Principles to Elevate Intelligence

In his seminal article advocating for the development of an intelligence literature,27 Sherman 

Kent articulated three important aspects:

1. “[T]he literature I have in mind will deal with first principles. A portion of it will 

certainly have to deal with the fundamental problem of what we are trying to do.”

2. Kent expected “a systematic literature of intelligence” to include “a definition of terms.” 

At the same time, he noted that, “Words which stand for complicated concepts cannot 

be defined by a dictionary.”

3. Kent hoped the intelligence literature would be an “elevated debate.”

The IC, the intelligence profession(s), and intelligence scholarship have advanced 

immeasurably in the half-century since Kent wrote those words. We are at an important time 

to return to a discussion of first principles and, yes, definitions, so we can build on that 

progress and develop an intelligence enterprise for the next half-century. Please join us in an 

elevated debate on defining—or redefining—national security intelligence for the future.

Frederic Baron is Director of Strategic Research Initiatives at NIU, where he fosters research to inform 

decisions on the future intelligence enterprise, drawing on his leadership of a tiger team on the Future 

IC. His studies have enabled IC strategic and resource decisions on social media exploitation, artificial 

intelligence, advanced computing, quantum technologies, and organizational challenge. Previously, he 

integrated intelligence collection on high-priority and emergent issues, including developing a hardtarget strategy on Russia and mobilizing the IC to monitor the Arab Spring and Syria’s civil war.

If you have comments, questions, or suggestions for a Research Short topic or article, please contact 

the NIU Office of Research at NIPress@niu.odni.gov.
8

Endnotes

1 Michael Warner, “Wanted: A Definition of ‘Intelligence’,” in Secret Intelligence, ed. Christopher Andrews, 

Richard J. Aldrich, and Wesley K. Wark (London: Routledge, 2019), 4-12.

2 Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “What Is Intelligence?” accessed December 2023. 

https://www.odni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/what-is-intelligence.

3 US Congress, National Security Act of 1947, U.S. Statutes at Large 496 (1947), as amended through Public Law 

118–31, December 22,2023, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1493/pdf/COMPS-1493.pdf.

4 Readers interested in the range of definitions would be well-served by starting with Jennifer Sims and Abram 

Shulsky’s divergent essays in U.S. Intelligence at the Crossroads: Agendas for Reform, ed. Roy Godson, Ernest R. 

May, and Gary Schmitt (Williamsport, MD: Brassey’s, 1995); Giangiuseppe Pili, “Toward a Philosophical 

Definition of Intelligence,” The International Journal of Intelligence, Security, and Public 21, no. 2 (2019); Milton 

Diaz “Forming a Definitional Framework for ‘Intelligence’,” American Intelligence Journal 29, no. 1 (2011); and 

Andrew Macpherson and Glenn Hastedt, “A New Quantitative Approach to an Old Question,” Studies in 

Intelligence 67, no. 3 (2023).

5 Examples of intentional redefinitions of intelligence include Alan Breakspear, “A New Definition of Intelligence,”

Intelligence and National Security 28, no. 5 (2013): 678-93; and James Cox, “A Fundamental Re-Conceptualization of 

Intelligence: Cognitive Activity and the Pursuit of Advantage,” Intelligence and National Security 37, no. 2 (2021):

197-215.

6 Gregory F. Treverton et al., Toward a Theory of Intelligence: Workshop Report (Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation, 2006), https://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF219.html.

7 Peter Gill, Stephen Marrin, and Mark Phythian, Intelligence Theory: Key Questions and Debates (London and New 

York: Routledge, 2009).

8 Michael Warner, “Fragile and Provocative: Notes on Secrecy and Intelligence,” Intelligence and National Security

27, no. 5 (2012).

9 David Kahn, “An Historical Theory of Intelligence,” Intelligence and National Security 16, no..3 (September 

2001): 79-92.

10 Stephen Marrin, “Improving Intelligence Studies as an Academic Discipline,” Intelligence and National Security

31, no. 22 (2014): 266-79.

11 Martin Bimfort, “A Definition of Intelligence,” Studies in Intelligence 2, no. 4 (Fall 1956), declassified 18 

September 1995.

12 Philip H.J. Davies, “Ideas of Intelligence: Divergent National Concepts and Institutions,” Harvard International 

Review 24, no. 3 (2002): 62–66.

13 Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2023 National Intelligence Strategy, released 10 August 2023.

14 Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “Principles of Professional Ethics for the IC,” in 2023 National 

Intelligence Strategy, released 10 August 2023.

15 US Congress, National Security Act of 1947.

16 Bimfort, “A Definition of Intelligence.”

17 White House, Executive Order 12333, “United States Intelligence Activities,” as amended by Executive Orders 

13284 (2003), 13355 (2004) and 13470 (2008), https://dpcld.defense.gov/Portals/49/Documents/Civil/eo-12333-

2008.pdf.

18 Wilhelm Agrell, “When Everything Is Intelligence–Nothing Is Intelligence,” The Sherman Kent Center for 

Intelligence Analysis Occasional Papers 1, no. 4 (2002).

19 Philip Davies, “Ideas of Intelligence: Divergent National Concepts and Institutions,” in Secret Intelligence, ed. 

Christopher Andrews, Richard J. Aldrich, and Wesley K. Wark (London: Routledge, 2019), 13-20.

20 Sherman Kent, “The Need for an Intelligence Literature,” Studies in Intelligence 1, no. 1 (1955): 1-11.

21 Treverton et al., Toward a Theory of Intelligence.

22 Treverton et al., Toward a Theory of Intelligence.

23 See, for example, Glenn P. Hastedt, Controlling Intelligence (New York: Frank Cass, 1991) and Hager Ben Jaffell 

and Sebastian Larsson, Problematizing Intelligence Studies: Towards a New Research Agenda (London:

Routledge, 2022).
9

24 Tobias O. Vogt, “Defining the Discipline of Intelligence Studies,” American Intelligence Journal 31, no. 2 (2013):

49-53.

25 Bowman H. Miller, “US Intelligence: Profession, Community, or Enterprise?” Studies in Intelligence 67, no. 2 (2023).

26 Treverton et al., Toward a Theory of Intelligence.

27 Kent, “The Need for an Intelligence Literature.”