#Intelligence community

[victusinveritas]

[absoluteboredome]

Esoteric Foreign Affairs Office

C.I.A

[thefreethoughtprojectcom]

A lot of questions remain unanswered about how much the ever-tightening relationship between private AI and for-profit automated decision making systems will impact much needed transparency and accountability.

Read More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/news/the-u-s-national-security-state-is-here-to-make-ai-even-less-transparent-and-accountable

#TheFreeThoughtProject

[trumpnewsinternational]

Intelligence Community Warns on Election Day Eve that Russia Is Conducting ‘Additional Influence Operations’.

The intelligence community issued a public statement on the eve of the 2024 election to warn that foreign adversaries — “particularly Russia” — were conducting additional influence operations “intended to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the U.S. elections.”

The statement, by the Biden Administration Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, released Monday said:

Since our statement on Friday, the IC has been observing foreign adversaries, particularly Russia, conducting additional influence operations intended to undermine public confidence in the integrity of U.S. elections and stoke divisions among Americans. The IC expects these activities will intensify through election day and in the coming weeks, and that foreign influence narratives will focus on swing states.

[idroolinmysleep]

A few months ago, as a debate was heating up over whether to renew an FBI surveillance authority known as Section 702, I was looking for an unsealed court document from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). I asked a colleague if FISC had a website where I could find these opinions. “Oh, that’s easy,” my colleague said. “Just check their Tumblr.” Sure enough, I found the document on the Tumblr in question: “IC on the Record,” a website “created at the direction of the President of the United States and maintained by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,” which promised “direct access to factual information related to the lawful foreign surveillance activities of the U.S. Intelligence Community.” How did the Office of the Director of National Intelligence—a senior-level agency representing the entire intelligence community including the CIA and the National Security Agency—come to host some of the most important docs on a platform better known for cat gifs, LGBTQ+ discourse, and indie sleaze? And why, 10 years later, after the internet moved beyond the cat gifs, Tumblr alienated its queer communities, and Gen Z went through a cycle of Tumblr-aesthetic nostalgia, is the government still in its Tumblr era?

There are a number of government agencies that I follow here on Tumblr, so I shouldn't be surprised to learn (ten years late) that the U.S. intelligence community has an account too, but I am.

[trump-executive-orders]

Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs

Issued March 27, 2025.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 7103(b)(1) of title 5 and 4103(b) of title 22, United States Code, to enhance the national security of the United States, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Determinations.  (a)  The agencies and agency subdivisions set forth in section 2 of this order are hereby determined to have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.  It is also hereby determined that Chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, cannot be applied to these agencies and agency subdivisions in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations.

(b)  The agency subdivisions set forth in section 3 of this order are hereby determined to have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.  It is also hereby determined that Subchapter X of Chapter 52 of title 22, United States Code, cannot be applied to these subdivisions in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations.

Sec. 2.  Additional National Security Exclusions.  Executive Order 12171 of November 19, 1979, as amended, is further amended by:

(a)  In section 1-101, adding “and Section 1-4” after “Section 1-2” in both places that term appears.

(b)  Adding after section 1-3 a new section 1-4 that reads:

“1-4.  Additional Exclusions.

1-401.  The Department of State.

1-402.  The Department of Defense, except for any subdivisions excluded pursuant to section 4 of the Executive Order of March 27, 2025, entitled ‘Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs.’

1-403.  The Department of the Treasury, except the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

1-404.  The Department of Veterans Affairs.

1-405.  The Department of Justice.

1-406.  Agencies or subdivisions of the Department of Health and Human Services:

(a)  Office of the Secretary.

(b)  Food and Drug Administration.

(c)  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

(d)  Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response.

(e)  Office of the General Counsel.

(f)  Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families.

(g) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

1-407.  Agencies or subdivisions of the Department of Homeland Security:

(a)  Office of the Secretary.

(b)  Office of the General Counsel.

(c)  Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans.

(d)  Management Directorate.

(e)  Science and Technology Directorate.

(f)  Office of Health Security.

(g)  Office of Homeland Security Situational Awareness.

(h)  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

(i)  United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

(j)  United States Coast Guard.

(k)  Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

(l)  Federal Emergency Management Agency.

1-408.  Agencies or subdivisions of the Department of the Interior:

(a)  Office of the Secretary.

(b)  Bureau of Land Management.

(c)  Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

(d)  Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

1-409.  The Department of Energy, except for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

1-410.  The following agencies or subdivisions of the Department of Agriculture:

(a)  Food Safety and Inspection Service.

(b)  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

1-411.  The International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.   

1-412.  The Environmental Protection Agency.

1-413.  The United States Agency for International Development.

1-414.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

1-415.  The National Science Foundation.

1-416.  The United States International Trade Commission.

1-417.  The Federal Communications Commission.

1-418.  The General Services Administration.

1-419.  The following agencies or subdivisions of each Executive department listed in section 101 of title 5, United States Code, the Social Security Administration, and the Office of Personnel Management:

(a)  Office of the Chief Information Officer.

(b)  any other agency or subdivision that has information resources management duties as the agency or subdivision’s primary duty.

1-499.  Notwithstanding the forgoing, nothing in this section shall exempt from the coverage of Chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code:

(a)  the immediate, local employing offices of any agency police officers, security guards, or firefighters, provided that this exclusion does not apply to the Bureau of Prisons;

(b)  subdivisions of the United States Marshals Service not listed in section 1-209 of this order; or

(c)  any subdivisions of the Departments of Defense or Veterans Affairs for which the applicable Secretary has issued an order suspending the application of this section pursuant to section 4 of the Executive Order of March 27, 2025, entitled ‘Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs.’”

Sec. 3.  Foreign Service Exclusions.  Executive Order 12171, as amended, is further amended by:

(a)  In the first paragraph:

(i)   adding “and Section 4103(b) of Title 22,” after “Title 5”; and

(ii)  adding “and Subchapter X of Chapter 52 of Title 22” after “Relations Program.”.

(b)  Adding after section 1-102 a new section 1-103 that reads:

“1-103.  The Department subdivisions set forth in section 1-5 of this order are hereby determined to have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.  It is also hereby determined that Subchapter X of Chapter 52 of title 22, United States Code, cannot be applied to those subdivisions in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations.  The subdivisions set forth in section 1-5 of this order are hereby excluded from coverage under Subchapter X of Chapter 52 of title 22, United States Code.”

(c)  Adding after the new section 1-4 added by section 2(b) of this order a new section 1-5 that reads:

“1-5.  Subdivisions of Departments Employing Foreign Service Officers.

1-501.  Subdivisions of the Department of State:

(a)  Each subdivision reporting directly to the Secretary of State.

(b)  Each subdivision reporting to the Deputy Secretary of State.

(c)  Each subdivision reporting to the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

(d)  Each subdivision reporting to the Under Secretary for Management.

(e)  Each subdivision reporting to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security.

(f)  Each subdivision reporting to the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights.

(g)  Each subdivision reporting to the Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and Environment.

(h)  Each subdivision reporting to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs.

(i)  Each subdivision reporting to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy.

(j)  Each United States embassy, consulate, diplomatic mission, or office providing consular services.

1-502.  Subdivisions of the United States Agency for International Development:

(a)  All Overseas Missions and Field Offices.

(b)  Each subdivision reporting directly to the Administrator.

(c)  Each subdivision reporting to the Deputy Administrator for Policy and Programming.

(d)  Each subdivision reporting to the Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources.”.

Sec. 4.  Delegation of Authority to the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs.  (a)  Subject to the requirements of subsection (b) of this section, the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs are delegated authority under 5 U.S.C. 7103(b)(1) to issue orders suspending the application of section 1-402 or 1-404 of Executive Order 12171, as amended, to any subdivisions of the departments they supervise, thereby bringing such subdivisions under the coverage of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

(b)  An order described in subsection (a) of this section shall only be effective if:

(i)   the applicable Secretary certifies to the President that the provisions of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute can be applied to such subdivision in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations; and

(ii)  such certification is submitted for publication in the Federal Register within 15 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5.  Delegation of Authority to the Secretary of Transportation.  (a)  The national security interests of the United States in ensuring the safety and integrity of the national transportation system require that the Secretary of Transportation have maximum flexibility to cultivate an efficient workforce at the Department of Transportation that is adaptive to new technologies and innovation.  Where collective bargaining is incompatible with that mission, the Department of Transportation should not be forced to seek relief through grievances, arbitrations, or administrative proceedings.

(b)  The Secretary of Transportation is therefore delegated authority under section 7103(b) of title 5, United States Code, to issue orders excluding any subdivision of the Department of Transportation, including the Federal Aviation Administration, from Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute coverage or suspending any provision of that law with respect to any Department of Transportation installation or activity located outside the 50 States and the District of Columbia.  This authority may not be further delegated.  When making the determination required by 5 U.S.C. 7103(b)(1) or 7103(b)(2), the Secretary of Transportation shall publish his determination in the Federal Register.

Sec. 6.  Implementation.  With respect to employees in agencies or subdivisions thereof that were previously part of a bargaining unit but have been excepted under this order, each applicable agency head shall, upon termination of the applicable collective bargaining agreement:

(a)  reassign any such employees who performed non-agency business pursuant to section 7131 of title 5 or section 4116 of title 22, United States Code, to performing solely agency business; and

(b)  terminate agency participation in any pending grievance proceedings under section 7121 of title 5, United States Code, exceptions to arbitral awards under section 7122 of title 5, United States Code, or unfair labor practice proceedings under section 7118 of title 5 or section 4116 of title 22, United States Code, that involve such employees.

Sec. 7.  Additional Review.  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency with employees covered by Chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, shall submit a report to the President that identifies any agency subdivisions not covered by Executive Order 12171, as amended:

(a) that have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work, applying the definition of “national security” set forth by the Federal Labor Relations Authority in Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations, and National Association of Government Employees Local R5-181, 4 FLRA 644 (1980); and

(b)  for which the agency head believes the provisions of Chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, cannot be applied to such subdivision in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations, and the reasons therefore.

Sec. 8.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[basementofthebizarre]

The Pentagon's Secret: Elizondo's 'Imminent' Demands We Look Up

“Imminent: Inside the Pentagon’s Hunt for UFOs” by Luis Elizondo is a pivotal work. It elevates the discussion surrounding Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). This is not just another speculative book. It is a meticulously crafted account from a former insider. It offers an unparalleled glimpse into the government’s serious approach to this complex topic. Authoritative Perspective: An…

[erebusvincent]

At this point you really have to wonder if transgenderism isn’t an intelligence operation by one or more of our adversaries. It has been so unbelievably destructive to the West as a whole, and particularly the US, that it could very well be a psychological weapon designed to cripple us. Are TRAs useful idiots, or are they enemies?

This week, City Journal broke the story of the National Security Agency’s secret sex chatroom, which was filled with salacious discussions of genital surgeries, trans fetishes, and sexual activities. The headlines rocketed through the national media and led to action by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who, within days, released a memo demanding that the intelligence agencies identify the participants, terminate their employment, and remove their security clearances.

But according to our whistleblower, these sex chats were just the tip of the iceberg. This longtime NSA insider tells me that the ideological capture of the NSA began a decade ago. Trans activists have entrenched themselves in positions of power, pressured employees to undergo reeducation trainings, and compromised national security in the name of ideology.

This is a sadly familiar story in many American institutions. But with the NSA, the stakes are higher. The agency is responsible for overseeing America’s digital intelligence-gathering and is, in theory, a key part of our national security apparatus.

The following interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

[chloeworships]

I am sounding the alarm 🚨 🎺 as your watch woman.

Do not delay on this.

I worked in HR; a shortage on ppl is devastating to companies and leads to low productivity, stress, burnout and loss of revenue and unpreparedness. I know layoffs are coming but in this area, there should be an increase in jobs.

If there is severe flooding, the national guard should be called in ASAP to save as many lives as possible.

You won’t be sorry you took this warning seriously when the time comes, you will be more than ready.

Also, these people are moving very quickly in your cities. Why? What’s the urgency in their part? Are they recruited people to spy on their own countries? Of all people ME? A patriot? 👀 — this could be why I saw Aaron Hernandez. He played for the patriots. Sometimes the LORD will show me the team along with the cowboys 🤠 to show the Americans 🇺🇸

Be 3 steps ahead of your adversaries cupcakes. I understand now why I keep seeing steps. I saw them at a church I attended on my visit to Cuba 🇨🇺

I also want to go as far as saying

“Bribes”

I found her and she was in the movie The Last Witch Hunter with “VIN DIESEL”⛽️🚗

In the movie her name is Chloe and she was the only person in the dream who saw me staying a float.

👀😵‍💫

[alyfoxxxen]

Trump CIA Director John Ratcliffe confirmed by Senate

[nationallawreview]

FY 2025 NDAA Includes Biotechnology Provisions

The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology announced on December 18, 2024, that the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act includes “a suite of recommendations designed to galvanize action on biotechnology” for the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). According to the Commission, the bill includes new authorities and requirements — derived from its May 2024 proposals —…

[thefreethoughtprojectcom]

Former spy Philip Giraldi shares how, after decades of serving in the intelligence community, he began to uncover the layers of deception within the agency, ultimately leading him to see through its lies and manipulations.

Read More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/deep-state/how-i-got-fired-from-the-cia-career-ops-officer-tells-all

#TheFreeThoughtProject

[tmarshconnors]

FISA

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed in 1978, represents a cornerstone of American national security and intelligence law. Born out of an era of Cold War tensions and heightened awareness of the need for intelligence oversight, FISA established the framework for surveilling foreign agents and other national security threats within the United States while balancing those actions with the protection of civil liberties. In recent decades, however, FISA has often sparked intense debates, especially as technology has evolved and the boundaries of surveillance have shifted.

A Brief History: The Origins of FISA

FISA emerged in the wake of a series of public revelations during the 1970s concerning widespread abuse by the government in surveilling American citizens. The Church Committee, a Senate investigation into intelligence practices, uncovered decades of unauthorised surveillance of civil rights activists, journalists, and political figures. These discoveries led to a recognition that greater oversight of the intelligence community was essential.

In response, FISA was passed to ensure that intelligence agencies had a legal pathway to conduct surveillance on foreign targets, particularly when those targets might be communicating with individuals inside the United States. However, FISA also placed critical safeguards to prevent this surveillance from infringing on the rights of American citizens. It created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a secretive court responsible for approving or denying government requests for surveillance of foreign agents within U.S. borders.

How FISA Works: Key Provisions

FISA is focused on protecting U.S. national security by regulating surveillance that targets foreign powers or their agents. This is typically understood to mean individuals or groups who are suspected of espionage or terrorism. There are three key components to how FISA operates:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC): This special court reviews requests by federal agencies, like the FBI or NSA, to authorise electronic surveillance or physical searches of foreign targets suspected of engaging in espionage or terrorism. The FISC’s proceedings are classified, and its judges serve as a safeguard, ensuring that there is a legal basis for the requested surveillance.

Warrants and Approvals: Under FISA, agencies must demonstrate probable cause to the FISC that the target of surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. If approved, the warrant permits electronic surveillance, such as phone taps or data collection.

Amendments and Extensions: FISA has evolved over the years through a series of amendments. One of the most notable is the Patriot Act of 2001, passed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Patriot Act expanded FISA’s reach, allowing broader surveillance powers, including the ability to surveil communications involving individuals with suspected ties to terrorism, even if they are American citizens. Later amendments, such as the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, introduced controversial provisions like Section 702, which allows the government to collect communications of foreign targets without a warrant, so long as the targets are outside of the U.S.

FISA and Civil Liberties: Controversies and Criticisms

Since its inception, FISA has walked a fine line between protecting national security and safeguarding individual rights. Critics have often expressed concern about the secretive nature of the FISC and the lack of transparency surrounding its rulings. While the court is designed to ensure that surveillance is justified, it operates behind closed doors, and the public rarely knows when a surveillance request is made, or why it was approved.

The expanded powers introduced by the Patriot Act and the subsequent rise of mass digital surveillance programs (like PRISM, revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013) further ignited debates over privacy rights. Section 702, in particular, has drawn scrutiny for allowing warrantless collection of communications that may involve U.S. citizens, raising concerns that the government could overreach, accessing private data without proper oversight.

Moreover, the "backdoor searches" problem—where the government queries databases for U.S. person information collected under foreign intelligence authorities—has fuelled arguments that FISA could be used to erode Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

FISA in the Digital Age: The Ongoing Debate

As technology has evolved, so too has the nature of intelligence collection. In a world where most communication takes place via the internet, the lines between foreign and domestic surveillance have blurred. The original framework of FISA, crafted in the late 1970s, didn’t anticipate the global, interconnected nature of digital communications. Modern surveillance technologies, like metadata collection and algorithmic analysis, are far more invasive than wiretapping a phone line.

The question now facing lawmakers and the public is whether FISA and its amendments need to be overhauled to adapt to this new landscape. Proponents of reform argue that the current structure allows for too much surveillance without adequate oversight or accountability, leaving room for potential abuses of power. They call for greater transparency in FISC proceedings and tighter restrictions on the use of surveillance on U.S. persons. Meanwhile, national security experts warn that any efforts to rein in FISA could hinder the ability of intelligence agencies to detect and thwart threats in a fast-moving, digital world.

The Balancing Act Between Security and Privacy

FISA remains a vital tool for protecting the United States from foreign threats, but its broader implications for civil liberties continue to provoke debate. The challenge lies in striking a balance between ensuring national security and upholding the privacy rights of individuals. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, the legal and ethical dilemmas surrounding surveillance will likely only intensify, making FISA a topic of ongoing relevance for policymakers, civil libertarians, and citizens alike.

As for me, I’m a bit OCD when it comes to my own privacy. I believe it's a fundamental right that shouldn’t be compromised, no matter the justification. The idea of being under constant surveillance by tech giants like Microsoft or government agencies like the NSA and CIA makes me uneasy. I can’t shake the feeling that, with so much power and so little transparency, these entities could easily overstep boundaries. Trust is something I don’t give lightly—especially when it comes to protecting my personal information.

Sources:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (1978)

The USA Patriot Act (2001)

The FISA Amendments Act (2008)

Church Committee Hearings (1975)