Homeland Security Intelligence: Perceptions, Statutory Definitions, and Approaches
Released: 2009-01-14T00:00:00

Introduction1

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress has not only focused considerable attention on how intelligence is collected, analyzed, and disseminated in order to protect the homeland against terrorism, but also what should such intelligence encompass. A discussion of what constitutes "homeland security intelligence" and how it nests within the broader intelligence discipline may be useful background as Congress continues to examine a broad range of homeland security issues.

Prior to 9/11, it was possible to make a distinction between "domestic intelligence"—primarily law enforcement information collected within the United States—and "foreign intelligence"—primarily military, political, and economic intelligence collected outside the country. Today, this distinction is blurred. Threats to the homeland posed by terrorist groups are national security threats, and intelligence collected outside the United States is often very relevant to the threat environment inside the United States and vice versa.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (hereafter the 9/11 Commission) stated that one of the challenges in preventing terrorist attacks is bridging the "foreign-domestic divide." The 9/11 Commission used this term for the divide that it found not only within the Intelligence Community (IC), but also between the agencies of the IC dedicated to the traditional foreign intelligence mission, and those agencies responsible for the homeland security intelligence (HSINT) and law enforcement missions. Some might categorize security intelligence and law enforcement (criminal) intelligence as "non-traditional" intelligence. Yet, the scope and composition of this non-traditional or homeland security intelligence remains somewhat nebulous.

At the broadest level, there is a plethora of definitions for intelligence. Most explain the various types of clandestine intelligence, the methods of intelligence collection (the "-Ints"), intelligence consumers, the purposes for which intelligence is collected, and the intelligence cycle. Traditional intelligence collection done clandestinely and overtly, largely at the federal level, to inform national-level policymakers is often differentiated from criminal intelligence gathered by a broader set of federal, state, and local actors generally for law enforcement purposes. Some argue that given that the end result in a criminal case is successful prosecution, that criminal intelligence gathering is largely reactive—a crime takes place, and "intelligence" or evidence is collected to support a prosecution. However, intelligence gathering can also be used to advance the causes of national security, as state and local law enforcement agencies can be viewed as the nation's counterterrorism "eyes and ears." Arguably, not all criminal intelligence gathering is reactive, as some law enforcement organizations and intelligence fusion centers use proactive intelligence gathering techniques, such as the recruitment of human assets, to prevent terrorist attacks.

The terms domestic intelligence and homeland security intelligence are often used colloquially and interchangeably by some observers. Depending on how one defines "homeland security," this may be understandable. If, however, one bounds the activities associated with intelligence geographically, a systemic malady which was at least a proximate cause of the intelligence failure resulting in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the two terms are inherently distinct. That is, domestic intelligence could be defined as that which is collected, analyzed, and disseminated within the United States; yet, homeland security intelligence may be much more broadly defined without regard to the geographic origin of the intelligence collected. The rationale for the integration of what is traditionally defined as foreign intelligence with that which is thought of as domestic intelligence is concisely stated by former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Ambassador John Negroponte: "What happens abroad can kill us at home."

One of the broadest definitions of intelligence is that "intelligence is knowledge, organization, and activity." Arguably, one of the most meaningful purposes of intelligence is "to establish where the danger lies." Some would argue based on this definition that "intelligence is intelligence"—that is, differentiating traditional from non-traditional intelligence is a theoretical matter which may have little relation to the end result—protecting national security. This argument might continue that threats to U.S. national security by and large originate overseas and, since its formal and statutory inception in 1947, the U.S. Intelligence Community has always been the first line of defense in identifying and understanding these threats. Although compelling, this argument could lead some observers to conclude that the state, local, and private sector intelligence players are simply "bolt on" modules to the existing federal community. Such a status quo plus model could be interpreted by some to mean that state, local, and private sector entities are new and passive consumers of federally gathered and analyzed intelligence products, yet not necessarily full intelligence cycle partners. This may not necessarily be the case, as state, local, and private sector organizations have taken on a more activist and proactive role in protecting their populations and infrastructure, a role that includes collecting their own intelligence while working with federal law enforcement and IC partners stationed in Washington, DC, and within their respective districts.

The "intelligence is intelligence" position might beg the question of what is the most appropriate strategy for homeland security intelligence—a "top-down" federally driven model where the traditional "Ints" are dominant, a "bottom-up" state, local, and private sector model where the thousands of state and local law enforcement intelligence collectors are dominant, or some unique partnership that strikes a balance between these two extreme models? To some extent, HSINT may be perceived by some as a federally led "top-down" model through which the federal government's intelligence entities provide raw intelligence and/or finished terrorism threat assessments to state, local, and tribal law enforcement entities which may make independent determinations of whether the intelligence is actionable. Another alternative is a "bottom up" model through which criminal intelligence, of the type collected long before the events of September 11, 2001, provides an assessment of the local environments in which a national security and/or a criminal threat might become a reality. A third model, among others, might envision a less hierarchical or a more decentralized structure in which roles and responsibilities of federal, state, and local players are more clearly delineated, information shared more widely, and coordination between law enforcement and traditional intelligence actors closer. These models will be highlighted below.

Some perceptions of HSINT among leaders in the IC and observers of the intelligence process are illustrative.

Some Perceptions of HSINT

Leaders within the Intelligence and Homeland Security communities often speak openly about the responsibilities, priorities, accomplishments, and challenges their agencies face. The nation's first DNI, Ambassador John Negroponte, stated that the Intelligence Community has tasked itself with "bolstering intelligence support for homeland security as enterprise objective number one." He spoke of this priority within the context of the DNI's mandate resulting from the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) to "integrate the foreign, military and domestic dimensions of the United States intelligence into a unified enterprise" and "connecting the dots across the foreign-domestic divide." At the aggregate level, even if it is assumed that there is one unified intelligence discipline, according to Ambassador Negroponte, there are three different dimensions of intelligence—foreign, military, and domestic. Under this school of thought, HSINT could become another dimension of intelligence that is distinct in some manners, yet overlaps with the aforementioned dimensions. At a relatively simplistic level, the relationships among the dimensions of intelligence could be depicted according to Figure 1 below.

Although each of the dimensions of intelligence (referred to above) could be further subdivided, the domestic intelligence dimension, under a broad understanding of the term, would include the role state, local, tribal, and private sector entities play in collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information and intelligence within their respective areas of jurisdiction or industries. DNI Negroponte has defined the domestic agenda as "institution building and information sharing without damaging the fabric and values of our political culture." With respect to institution building, the approach remains federal-centric. Ambassador Negroponte referred specifically to the refinement of the FBI's National Security Branch, the further development of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), as well as the development of the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis. State governments, local law enforcement, the private sector, and tribal entities were mentioned at a procedural level—that is, in the sense of "facilitating these multidirectional flow of information."

Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff provided his insights into and thoughts about defining the scope of HSINT. Using the metaphor of intelligence as the "radar of the 21 st century" to provide early warning of terrorist attacks, he stated,

Intelligence, as you know, is not only about spies and satellites. Intelligence is about the thousands and thousands of routine, everyday observations and activities. Surveillance, interactions—each of which may be taken in isolation as not a particularly meaningful piece of information, but when fused together, gives us a sense of the patterns and the flow that really is at the core of what intelligence analysis is all about ... . We (DHS) actually generate a lot of intelligence ... we have many interactions every day, every hour at the border, on airplanes, and with the Coast Guard.

Some observers have characterized domestic intelligence in the following manner:

Domestic intelligence entails the range of activities focused on protecting the United States from threats mostly of foreign origin. Focused narrowly, it includes the FBI's counterterrorism work with local law enforcement. On a much broader scale, however, it also involves a broader set of intelligence activities overseen by the Director of National Intelligence, the secretary of defense, the attorney general, and the secretary of homeland security. The goal is to integrate federal, state and local governments, and, when appropriate, the private sector on a secure collaborative network to stop our enemies before they act. Those enemies include individuals and groups attempting to transport weapons of mass destruction, international terrorists, organized criminals, narcotics traffickers, and countries that are working alone or in combination against U.S. interests.

Another observer has defined "domestic national security intelligence" as

intelligence concerning the threat of major, politically motivated violence, or equal grievous harm to national security or the economy, inflicted within the nation's territorial limits by international terrorists, homegrown terrorists, or spies of saboteurs employed or financed by foreign nations.

According to Dr. Sherman Kent, security intelligence is defined as

the intelligence behind the police function. Its job is to protect the nation and its members from malefactors who are working to our national and individual hurt. In one of its most dramatic forms it is the intelligence which continuously is trying to put the finger on clandestine agents sent here by foreign powers. In another, it is the activity which protects our frontiers against other undesirable gatecrashers: illegal entrants, smugglers, dope runners, and so on... By and large, security intelligence is the knowledge and the activity which our defensive police forces must have before they take specific action against the individual ill-wisher or ill-doer.

Some of the similarities between these perceptions include (1) a fundamental belief that intelligence is the first line of defense for the nation, (2) threats to U.S. national security are largely, although not solely, of foreign origin, and (3) there is a national intelligence role for non-traditional players (largely state, local, tribal law enforcement, as well as the private sector), a role in which they make contributions to preventing terrorist attacks or other inimical acts directed against U.S. citizens within the United States. Others, however, may account for the difference in these perceptions as being associated with the explicit roles and responsibilities that these non-traditional entities play. Are these entities solely recipients of federally collected raw and finished intelligence products? At a policy and, importantly, local level, are non-traditional players viewed by federal personnel as equal partners, and/or "force multipliers?" At the federal level, what policies and mechanisms are in place to provide those non-traditional entities with feedback on the intelligence they collect and provide to the federal government?

Although the breadth of these questions is beyond the scope of this report, it may be illustrative to view HSINT through the eyes of national strategy.

The National Intelligence Strategy, National Strategy for Homeland Security, and Homeland Security Intelligence

According to the DNI's National Intelligence Strategy of the United States of America: Transformation Through Integration and Innovation , one of the basic objectives is to "build an integrated intelligence capability to address threats to the homeland, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties."

The strategy stipulates that the nature of the transnational threats to the United States "force us to rethink the way we conduct intelligence collection at home and its relationship with traditional intelligence methods abroad." Moreover, the strategy states that

U.S. intelligence elements must focus their capabilities to ensure that (1) Intelligence elements in the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are properly resourced and closely integrated within the larger Intelligence Community, (2) all Intelligence Community components assist in facilitating the integration of collection and analysis against terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the homeland, and (3) state, local, and tribal entities and the private sector are connected to our homeland security and intelligence efforts.

Any national strategy, one could argue, by definition focuses on and provides direction to only those agencies that the federal government controls. A broader reach and/or direction to entities beyond this purview might run the risk of presupposing that the affected community(ies) agree with the national strategy and/or have the resources to implement such direction. Therefore, it may be appropriate that the National Intelligence Strategy , while recognizing a homeland security intelligence role for state, local, and tribal entities, as well as the private sector, does so only in a general manner that does not stipulate the activities these communities will implement as part of the broader community of entities working to protect U.S. national security.

It could also be argued, that while the National Intelligence Strategy calls for state, local, and tribal entities to be "connected to our homeland security and intelligence efforts," it nevertheless envisions homeland security intelligence as being driven, in large part, by the federal entities most associated with the domestic intelligence mission—that is, the activities undertaken by the intelligence elements of the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. How the term "connected" is defined becomes of critical importance, as it implies communication and the sharing of information among federal, state, and local intelligence officials.

The National Strategy for Homeland Security published in October 2007, is more explicit about the role of state, local, tribal, and even private sector elements. It stresses that homeland security is a shared responsibility. Consistent with this theme, the strategy highlights the importance of collaboration in the realm of homeland security intelligence. It characterizes the process of identifying, locating, and uncovering terrorist activity—the core objective of homeland security intelligence—as multifaceted. The strategy specifies the ways government at all levels and the private sector need to contribute to the homeland security effort. It also notes the importance of an "integrated Information Sharing Environment that supports the vertical and horizontal distribution of terrorism-related information.... "

The sharing of homeland security intelligence has been a particular priority for the Congress, which directed the establishment of the Information Sharing Environment in the IRTP A . Later, in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act) , Congress directed DHS to undertake additional initiatives, including the following:

Establish department-wide procedures for review and analysis of information provided by state, local, tribal, and private sector elements; integrate that information into DHS intelligence products, and disseminate to federal partners within the IC. Evaluate how DHS components are utilizing homeland security information and participating in the Information Sharing Environment. Establish a DHS State, Local, and Regional Fusion Center Initiative to establish partnerships with state, local, and regional fusion centers. Coordinate and oversee the creation of an Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group (ITACG) that will bring state, local, and tribal law enforcement and intelligence analysts to work in the National Counterterrorism Center.

DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan

The DHS intelligence strategy has four main elements: (1) vision, (2) mission, (3) definitions, and (4) goals and objectives. While the strategy does not specifically define HSINT, it provides a vision for the DHS intelligence enterprise as being "an integrated ... enterprise that provides a decisive information advantage to the guardians of our homeland security." According to the strategy, the mission of the DHS intelligence enterprise is to

provide valuable, actionable intelligence and intelligence-related information for and among the National leadership, all components of DHS, our federal partners, state, local, territorial, tribal, and private sector customers. We ensure that information is gathered from all relevant DHS field operations and is fused with information from other members of the Intelligence Community to produce accurate, timely, and actionable intelligence products and services. We independently collate, analyze, coordinate, disseminate, and manage threat information affecting the homeland.

Implicit in this strategy is the DHS adoption of the definition of homeland security information outlined in the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Statutory Definitions of Intelligence and Homeland Security Information

Homeland security intelligence is not a term that is as yet defined or codified in law. The term and activities associated with it include—and go beyond—the definitions of the two traditional types of intelligence commonly defined in law and executive orders: foreign intelligence and counterintelligence. And, more recently, definitions of these two types of intelligence have been supplemented by the terms "national intelligence" and "intelligence related to national security."

As with most intelligence-related terms, individuals attach their own interpretations and perceptions to HSINT. While there may be some commonly held perceptions about how HSINT is defined, it is also possible that individuals use the terms freely, but without a true common understanding of the scope and breadth of activities that may be consistent with homeland security intelligence. The primary statutory definition that applies is that which appears in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 , which defines homeland security information as

any information possessed by a federal, state, or local agency that (a) related to the threat of terrorist activity, (b) relates to the ability to prevent, interdict or disrupt terrorist activity, (c) would improve the identification or investigation of a suspected terrorist or terrorist organization; or (d) would improve the response to a terrorist act.

The DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis has adopted this definition of homeland security information. It is worthwhile to note that although DHS remains an organization designed to protect against "all hazards," the focus of homeland security information, at least as defined in law, is counterterrorism. As illustrated below, HSINT can be more broadly interpreted to involve intelligence designed to protect against the inimical activities of narcotics traffickers, organized criminals, and others having international support networks and seeking to engage in activities that could undermine U.S. national security.

Another type of intelligence defined in statute is traditional or foreign intelligence, which means [i]nformation relating to the capabilities, intentions, and activities of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorism activities.

The methods of traditional foreign intelligence collection fall into the following five areas: imagery intelligence (IMINT), signals intelligence (SIGINT), human intelligence (HUMINT), measurement and signatures intelligence (MASINT), and open source intelligence (OSINT). While the meanings of these disciplines are relatively well known and commonly understood among intelligence professionals, HSINT is more nebulous. Because HSINT is not necessarily source-specific, some would question whether it should be referred to as a collection "discipline." Although it is true that numerous unique entities are within DHS and at the state and local government levels, as well as within the private sector, that are aggressively collecting homeland security information, it is also true that many of the traditional aforementioned "INTs" collect homeland security intelligence insofar as they provide information on terrorism threats that may originate globally, yet are potentially manifested within U.S. borders. Within DHS Intelligence itself, the OSINT and HUMINT collection methods are likely to be most prevalent.

The other type of intelligence codified in law is counterintelligence, which is defined as

Information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted for by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities.

With respect to counterintelligence, DHS Intelligence has as one of its objectives to "consistent with legal authorities, establish measures to protect the Department against hostile intelligence and operational activities conducted by or on behalf of foreign powers or international terrorist activities." To some extent, however, at least for semantics if not necessarily for jurisdictional purposes, the differences between foreign intelligence and counterintelligence were attenuated with the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-458 ). The IRTPA sought to remedy numerous problems uncovered by the 9/11 Commission, one of which was the aforementioned gap between foreign and domestic intelligence. The IRTPA amended the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. §401a) to read,

The terms 'national intelligence' and 'intelligence related to national security' refer to all intelligence, regardless of source from which derived and including information gathered within or outside the United States that (a) pertains, as determined consistent with any guidance issued by the President, to more than one United States Government agency; and (b) that involves - (I) threats to the United States, its people, property, or interests; (ii) the development, proliferation, or use of weapons of mass destruction; or (iii) any other matter bearing on U.S. national or homeland security.

As such, HSINT could be interpreted as synonymous with intelligence related to national security, or some subset thereof.

A framework for outlining the scope of HSINT, or at least the criteria by which it might be framed could prove helpful. While there are numerous approaches to framing homeland security intelligence, three possible approaches are discussed below.

Approaches to Framing Homeland Security Intelligence

There are at least three different constructs that could be used to frame HSINT: (1) geographic (2) structural, and (3) holistic. Table 1 summarizes some of the limits and boundaries of these three possible approaches to framing HSINT. Beyond geographic bounds, another set of differentiating factors between these approaches is the extent to which, if at all, one believes homeland security intelligence is the sole purview of the federal government, or a more inclusive and cooperative federal, state, local, tribal, and private sector model.

Geographic Approach

Homeland security intelligence can be viewed, some might argue rather simplistically, in geographic and federal/state/local government terms. That is, if the intelligence collection activity takes place within the United States—whether it be by a federal agency or a state, local, tribal, or private sector actor, it would be considered HSINT. Under this approach, while HSINT's activities are constrained by borders, the yield from homeland security's collection and analysis could be combined with foreign intelligence to develop a more complete picture of homeland security threats. Others might counter that the problem with this type of approach is that, as the events of September 11, 2001, demonstrated clearly, national borders increasingly have little meaning in determining threats to U.S. national and homeland security. As has been well documented by numerous studies, the planning for the events of 9/11 took place largely overseas, but the acts were executed within U.S. borders. An intelligence approach that considered only activities associated with homegrown threats, without a more integrated, global perspective on the threat, would miss one of the central lessons learned from 9/11—the importance of integrating intelligence related to threats to national security regardless of the geographic location of the source.

Structural/Statutory Approach

Homeland security intelligence could be viewed as primarily a federal activity. Geography is not as important under this approach, as the federal entities that engage in homeland security intelligence may, directly or indirectly, collect information outside the United States. For example, the FBI, through its Legal Attaché (LEGAT) program, has 75 LEGAT offices and sub-offices providing coverage for over 200 countries, islands, and territories. Through these offices, it collects principally criminal information through open liaison with international law enforcement counterparts. More specifically, under this approach, HSINT is a federal activity that is engaged in by certain statutory members of the Intelligence Community. Thus, of the 16 agencies that are statutory members of the IC, under this approach perhaps only four would engage in domestic intelligence activities—the intelligence elements of the FBI; DHS I&A and the U.S. Coast Guard; the intelligence elements of the Treasury Department; and the intelligence elements of the Energy Department. Others might argue this approach is too parochial, as it discounts the important homeland security intelligence roles played by other statutory members of the IC and non-federal actors, such as state and local intelligence fusion centers and the private sector.

Holistic Approach

Under this approach, HSINT is not bounded by geographic constraints, level of government, or perceived mutual mistrust between public and private sectors. That is, the approach recognizes no borders and is neither "top down" nor "bottom up." It involves and values equally information collected by the U.S. private sector owners of national critical infrastructure, intelligence related to national security collected by federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement officers, as well as the traditional "-Ints" collected by statutory members of the IC. It involves strategic and tactical intelligence designed to prevent attacks on the U.S. homeland, as well as highly tactical and event-driven information coordination that must take place in response to a terrorist attack or national disaster.

Although information sharing between levels of government is widely held to be an undisputable public "good," achieving effective levels of information exchange is a challenging goal. As former Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee H. Hamilton, stated: "You can change the law, you can change the technology, but you still need to change the culture; you need to motivate institutions and individuals to share information." Administration officials have recognized these challenges. Ambassador Thomas E. McNamara, the Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment (ISE), testified that "the breadth and complexity of the information sharing challenge should not be underestimated. Information silos, cultural issues, and other barriers that inhibit sharing still exist today."

Under the holistic approach, the HSINT community might include the 16 statutory members of the IC (as each collects national intelligence, or intelligence related to national security which could have a profound impact on homeland security); the National Counterterrorism Center, National Counterintelligence Center, National Counter Proliferation Center, and the Open Source Intelligence Center; the 14 existing private sector Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACS), scores of state and local law enforcement entities charged with gathering criminal intelligence, numerous state and regional "intelligence fusion" centers, and federal entities with law enforcement responsibilities which may collect intelligence related to national security. This holistic approach implies an interdependency between the diverse players of the statutory IC and the broader HSINT Community. As Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, a former CIA case officer and former Special Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the State Department states, although there are differences between intelligence and law enforcement,

the primary customer for domestic foreign intelligence on near-term threats is law enforcement. And law enforcement can provide valuable leads for intelligence officers. The intelligence collector and the law enforcement consumer, therefore, must strive for more than information sharing; they must seek interdependence.

Calls for interdependence between foreign intelligence and security or criminal intelligence today mirror those made nearly thirty years ago by Dr. Kent, who wrote

The real picture of the diversity in kinds of intelligence... lies in this truth: a very great many of the arbitrarily defined branches of intelligence are interdependent. Each may have its well-defined primary target which it makes its primary concern, but both the pursuit of this target and the byproducts of pursuing it bring most of the independent branches into some sort of relationship with the others. Intelligence as an activity is at its best when this fact is realized and acted upon in good faith.

The challenge, then as now, is to implement such a vision where all players in the de facto HSINT Community would be treated as partners with value to add. What has changed substantially since Dr. Kent's seminal work is the addition of state, local, and private sector actors as both producers and consumers of intelligence. It is here—in the interaction with these relatively new players—that the DHS Intelligence Enterprise has a great role to play. The clear elucidation of HSINT role and responsibilities and implementation, particularly between the FBI and DHS Intelligence, remains an evolving process. A broader understanding of the members and functions of the HSINT Community and the DHS members of the community may be helpful in assessment of these matters.

The Homeland Security Intelligence Community

The Intelligence Community (IC) is defined in law, yet the homeland security intelligence community (HSIC) remains a somewhat nebulous entity. As defined by the DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan , the HSIC "includes the organizations of the stakeholder community that have intelligence elements." The Homeland Security Stakeholder Community is defined broadly as

all levels of government, the Intelligence, Defense, and Law Enforcement Communities, private sector critical infrastructure operators, and those responsible for securing the borders, protecting transportation, and maritime systems, and guarding the security of the homeland.

Notwithstanding the fact that a HSIC is not statutorily defined, and may not necessarily be a useful construct from a managerial perspective, such a community, as traditionally defined, exists. The members and collective responsibilities of this community depend, to some extent, on how one bounds the function of HSINT. As mentioned above, the broader the definition of HSINT, the wider the range of players in the community. If one adopts the holistic model of HSINT, the HSIC would include a broad range of agencies, many of which are hybrid agencies undertaking homeland security, law enforcement, defense, and/or traditional foreign intelligence functions. These entities include, among others, the intelligence elements of the Department of Defense (DOD) U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), and Counterintelligence Field Activity; the Department of Justice's Federal Bureau of Investigation; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; and Drug Enforcement Administration; the Department of Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, and the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence. Numerous state and local law enforcement entities, and the state and regional intelligence fusion centers, would fall under a broad interpretation of homeland security intelligence. Finally, the private sector, particularly those sectors outlined as being part of U.S. critical infrastructure (as defined under HSPD-7) would also fall into a broadly defined concept of a homeland intelligence community.

An interesting comparison can be drawn between the HSIC and the statutory IC, as defined in the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, and in subsequent Executive Orders. One general definition of the IC is a "federation of Executive Branch agencies and organizations that conduct intelligence activities necessary for the conduct of foreign relations and protection of national security." A federation differs from a community insofar as the constituent elements of a federation, by definition, give up some degree of authority to a more central body. A community, by contrast, implies a group of persons or entities merely having common interests, but not necessarily bound together by any formal power sharing arrangements or agreements. While the IC has arguably moved more in the direction of a federation with the establishment of a Director of National Intelligence (DNI), one could argue the HSIC, broadly defined, remains very much a community spread across federal, state, local government sectors, as well as the private sector. The diffuse nature of a broadly defined HSIC may be dictated by the very nature of the function itself. That is, if state, local, tribal and private sector members are valued and contributing members of the HSIC, an attempt at centralization may undermine the community's effectiveness and efficiency. Planned decentralization, with a clear understanding of the roles played by each level of organization, and the parameters of how information is shared bi-directionally, is one model of organization for the HSIC.