From: officialflagrant
The intelligence community underwent significant changes following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, leading to what is often referred to as “post-9/11 reforms” [02:11:49].

Pre-9/11 Intelligence Failures

Before 9/11, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) operated with distinct authorities and, critically, did not effectively share information [00:05:04]. The 9/11 Commission, established in 2003, later concluded that both agencies had sufficient information to potentially prevent the attacks but failed to connect the dots due to this lack of collaboration [00:06:20]. The intelligence community was still prosecuting intelligence as if it were the Cold War, ignoring the rising threat of terrorism and authoritarian regimes [00:07:34].

Post-9/11 Reforms

In response to these failures, Congress mandated significant reforms. The most notable change was the creation of the National Director of Intelligence (DNI) [00:07:50]. This new overarching authority for the entire intelligence community was tasked with:

  • Prioritizing intelligence and dictating what actions agencies should take [00:08:01].
  • Ensuring information sharing among agencies like the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency (NSA) [00:06:25], preventing them from operating in silos [00:06:27].

The DNI acts as the decision-making hub for intelligence, which the CIA, as the central intelligence collection agency, never was prior to 9/11 [00:06:47]. This reform aimed to establish checks and balances, ensuring that the collected intelligence is properly disseminated and acted upon [02:11:52].

Challenges and Critiques

Despite these reforms, the intelligence community continues to face challenges:

Bureaucracy and Career Incentives

The CIA operates as a federal government organization, akin to the DMV, rather than an efficient corporation [00:09:03]. Promotions within government often incentivize entrenchment in the status quo rather than challenging it, leading to bureaucracy and stagnation [00:11:28]. This contrasts with the commercial sector, where professionals are encouraged to broaden their skills and challenge norms to advance [00:11:10].

A “mass exodus” of younger talent from the intelligence community occurred following the 2016 Trump election, as careers looked less appealing with limited long-term financial incentives and a perception of government inefficiency [00:11:45] [00:17:18].

Presidential Influence and Funding

As an agency under the executive branch, the CIA’s funding and operational capacity are directly tied to the President’s trust and priorities [01:18:22]. If a president distrusts the agency, funding can be cut, impacting operations and reducing opportunities for promotion for staff [01:18:30]. This creates a system built to satisfy the “boss” rather than necessarily prioritizing the best intelligence for national safety [01:19:03].

Risk Aversion

Post-9/11, while accountability has increased, there’s also been a loss of “tolerance for risk” within the CIA [02:12:04]. Officers may be hesitant to take necessary risks in intelligence collection for fear of diplomatic “flaps” or losing their jobs if the intelligence doesn’t yield immediate, measurable results [02:14:54].

Information Flow and Accountability

Reports from junior officers can be rewritten by senior managers, leading to a “game of telephone” where crucial information can be diluted or altered based on older “Cold War” mindsets rather than current threats like terrorism [02:21:57]. This lack of clear accountability for information changes makes it difficult to trace failures [02:21:59].

Private Intelligence and its Implications

Donald Trump’s administration notably chose to rely less on the traditional intelligence community and more on private intelligence firms [01:12:09]. This highlighted the perceived efficiency of privatization, as private intelligence can operate without the administrative costs and bureaucratic hurdles faced by government agencies [01:13:01].

However, the risk of a fully privatized intelligence system is that it could prioritize “marketing” and what a “boss” wants to hear over objective quality [02:44:17]. This raises concerns about the potential for biased information delivery and the use of intelligence as a tool for political or corporate interests [02:15:13].

Trump also limited the duration of security clearances for former CIA employees, which previously allowed them to transition into lucrative private sector roles using their government contacts [01:15:52]. This move aimed to retain talent within the government but also limited competition for the private intelligence firms he favored [01:16:11].

The Future of Intelligence Reform

Ongoing “intelligence reform” discussions propose changes to promotions, sharing processes, and analytical frameworks to create a more effective system [01:39:40]. This includes implementing checks and balances that encourage junior officers to speak truth to power, knowing their assessments will be documented and considered [02:11:57].

Ultimately, the goal is to attract and retain high-performing individuals, ensuring that the next generation of talented people join the agency to support national security [02:41:00]. There is a desire among former intelligence officers to bridge the gap between the community and the national security infrastructure to combat conspiracy theories and public distrust [02:41:51]. However, significant reform may require another national disaster, as the country often reacts rather than proactively addresses systemic issues [02:51:00].