Latest in Intelligence Oversight
Sharing classified information with nonfederal actors has benefits that extend well beyond protecting elections and improving cybersecurity.
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has released a partially-redacted summary of its “China Deep Dive” report on the U.S. intelligence community’s capabilities and competencies regarding the People’s Republic of China.
The GOP isn’t wrong to suspect partisan bias in the Trump-Russia investigation. That’s why Americans need a different kind of intelligence reform.
What’s in the decision ruling that Canada’s intelligence service failed to disclose that information in national security warrant applications was likely illegally obtained?
Moscow’s bounty program fits a pattern of Russian policy in Afghanistan rooted in the country’s desire to maintain influence in its near abroad.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will hold an open hearing on May 5 at 9:30 a.m. to consider the president’s nomination of Rep. John Ratcliffe for director of national intelligence. What should the committee ask him?
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence on April 30 released its annual transparency report for the 2019 calendar year. The report presents statistics on how often the government uses certain national securities authorities.
You can read the report here and below:
The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) released a statement about the whistleblower form that the Ukraine whistleblower used to file his complaint.
Counsel for the IC whistleblower contacted acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire to inform of the whistleblower’s intention to “contact the congressional intelligence communities directly,” in a letter released yesterday.
The Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Adam Schiff published a letter written to Attorney General Bill Barr regarding the Department of Justice’s involvement in the whistleblower complaint. Schiff characterized the intervention as “improper and contrary to both a clear, categorical statutory directive and longstanding IC whistleblowing practices” before demanding the formal legal opinion, allegedly from the Office of Legal Counsel related to the complaint.