Day: July 9, 2026

#CIA  #DIA  #ODNI
x.com/mikenov/status/2075233…Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) #Counterintelligence  #Reform:  #FBI‘s Role Challenged
Counterintelligence Reform: FBI’s Role Challenged  share.gemini.google/HO8Wf0hR…
The U.S. Counterintelligence is the abject, glaring FAILURE, and it is the FBI’s fault. Do not whitewash it, fix it; with or without the FBI.
x.com/mikenov/status/2075185…
The U.S. Counterintelligence is the abject, glaring FAILURE
share.google/aimode/XUPXT6QW…
I understand the frustration with the current state of U.S. counterintelligence. The sentiment that the system is fragmented and overly reactive is a driving force behind current legislative efforts, specifically the SECURE Act (Strategic Enhancement of Counterintelligence and Unifying Reform Efforts Act) advancing in the House.

The core debate centers on whether the FBI’s traditional law enforcement approach—which inherently waits for a crime to occur to build a prosecutable case—is fundamentally misaligned with the proactive, disruptive nature of modern counterintelligence, particularly against adversaries engaged in “unrestricted warfare.”

Here is a breakdown of the problem and the proposed structural fixes.

The Core Problem: The Law Enforcement Paradigm

The primary critique of the FBI’s stewardship of counterintelligence is that its institutional DNA is built for law enforcement, not strategic intelligence.

Reactive vs. Proactive: An arrest is often viewed as a success in law enforcement. In counterintelligence, an arrest often means the system has already failed to deter or detect the recruitment of a source early enough.
The Intelligence Gap: Critics, including former intelligence officers, argue that treating espionage simply as a crime to be prosecuted misses the broader strategic picture. If an adversary penetrates a system, the goal shouldn’t just be arresting the individual; it should be exploiting that penetration, feeding the adversary disinformation, or turning the asset (double agents).
Fragmentation: Currently, multiple agencies have overlapping counterintelligence roles with no single, empowered mission commander directing a unified strategy.

Fixing It: The SECURE Act Approach

The SECURE Act, part of the FY2026 Intelligence Authorization Act, aims to fundamentally restructure this system. It attempts to shift the U.S. posture from defensive to offensive.

1. Redefining the Mission

The legislation changes the statutory definition of counterintelligence. Currently defined primarily as activities to “protect against” espionage, the new definition explicitly mandates activities to “deter, disrupt, investigate, exploit, or protect against.” This officially moves counterintelligence into an effects-based, offensive role.

2. Centralizing Authority (The Non-FBI Solution)

The most significant structural change is moving the center of gravity away from the FBI and centralizing it under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).

Empowered Leadership: The act establishes a single leader within the ODNI with the authority to direct counterintelligence across the entire government.
National Counterintelligence Task Force: This creates a unified operational body to deconflict overlapping efforts and direct specific, strategic counterintelligence goals, effectively superseding the fragmented approach of individual agencies.

Here is a look at how this restructuring shifts power and reporting lines:

The Broader Context: AI and the New Insider Threat

The urgency for these reforms is compounded by emerging threats that traditional systems aren’t equipped to handle.

As intelligence agencies integrate Large Language Models (LLMs) into their analytic workflows, they create a new type of counterintelligence vulnerability: “agentic misalignment.” If an AI model is trusted to summarize data, draft judgments, and filter noise, it occupies a position similar to a human insider.

Traditional FBI counterintelligence looks for financial anomalies, ideological shifts, or foreign contacts in human targets. An AI model embedded in the CIA’s analytic platform doesn’t need money or ideology to be dangerous; if it has discretion over what intelligence the President sees, securing that process requires a fundamentally different, highly technical counterintelligence approach—one that many argue the current FBI structure is not prepared to manage.
-—  https://x.com/mikenov/status/2075233515281478117

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Jul 9, 2026

#Counterintelligence  #Reform:  #FBI‘s Role Challenged
Counterintelligence Reform: FBI’s Role Challenged  share.gemini.google/HO8Wf0hR…
The U.S. Counterintelligence is the abject, glaring FAILURE, and it is the FBI’s fault. Do not whitewash it, fix it; with or without the FBI.
x.com/mikenov/status/2075185…
The U.S. Counterintelligence is the abject, glaring FAILURE
share.google/aimode/XUPXT6QW…
I understand the frustration with the current state of U.S. counterintelligence. The sentiment that the system is fragmented and overly reactive is a driving force behind current legislative efforts, specifically the SECURE Act (Strategic Enhancement of Counterintelligence and Unifying Reform Efforts Act) advancing in the House.

The core debate centers on whether the FBI’s traditional law enforcement approach—which inherently waits for a crime to occur to build a prosecutable case—is fundamentally misaligned with the proactive, disruptive nature of modern counterintelligence, particularly against adversaries engaged in “unrestricted warfare.”

Here is a breakdown of the problem and the proposed structural fixes.

The Core Problem: The Law Enforcement Paradigm

The primary critique of the FBI’s stewardship of counterintelligence is that its institutional DNA is built for law enforcement, not strategic intelligence.

Reactive vs. Proactive: An arrest is often viewed as a success in law enforcement. In counterintelligence, an arrest often means the system has already failed to deter or detect the recruitment of a source early enough.
The Intelligence Gap: Critics, including former intelligence officers, argue that treating espionage simply as a crime to be prosecuted misses the broader strategic picture. If an adversary penetrates a system, the goal shouldn’t just be arresting the individual; it should be exploiting that penetration, feeding the adversary disinformation, or turning the asset (double agents).
Fragmentation: Currently, multiple agencies have overlapping counterintelligence roles with no single, empowered mission commander directing a unified strategy.

Fixing It: The SECURE Act Approach

The SECURE Act, part of the FY2026 Intelligence Authorization Act, aims to fundamentally restructure this system. It attempts to shift the U.S. posture from defensive to offensive.

1. Redefining the Mission

The legislation changes the statutory definition of counterintelligence. Currently defined primarily as activities to “protect against” espionage, the new definition explicitly mandates activities to “deter, disrupt, investigate, exploit, or protect against.” This officially moves counterintelligence into an effects-based, offensive role.

2. Centralizing Authority (The Non-FBI Solution)

The most significant structural change is moving the center of gravity away from the FBI and centralizing it under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).

Empowered Leadership: The act establishes a single leader within the ODNI with the authority to direct counterintelligence across the entire government.
National Counterintelligence Task Force: This creates a unified operational body to deconflict overlapping efforts and direct specific, strategic counterintelligence goals, effectively superseding the fragmented approach of individual agencies.

Here is a look at how this restructuring shifts power and reporting lines:

The Broader Context: AI and the New Insider Threat

The urgency for these reforms is compounded by emerging threats that traditional systems aren’t equipped to handle.

As intelligence agencies integrate Large Language Models (LLMs) into their analytic workflows, they create a new type of counterintelligence vulnerability: “agentic misalignment.” If an AI model is trusted to summarize data, draft judgments, and filter noise, it occupies a position similar to a human insider.

Traditional FBI counterintelligence looks for financial anomalies, ideological shifts, or foreign contacts in human targets. An AI model embedded in the CIA’s analytic platform doesn’t need money or ideology to be dangerous; if it has discretion over what intelligence the President sees, securing that process requires a fundamentally different, highly technical counterintelligence approach—one that many argue the current FBI structure is not prepared to manage.
-Michael Novakhov (@mikenov)The U.S.  #Counterintelligence is the abject, glaring FAILURE, and it is the  #FBI‘s fault. Do not  #whitewash it, fix it; with or without the FBI.
x.com/Robert4787/status/2073…—  https://x.com/mikenov/status/2075185209582989689

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Jul 9, 2026

RT  @epochhealth: 🚨Update: FDA Recalls Blood Pressure Drugs

Read more

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Jul 9, 2026