Ken Wainstein wants his intelligence agency to operate like it\u2019s 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wainstein\u2019s often overlooked intelligence unit housed in the Department of Homeland Security was established in the wake of the 9\/11 attacks. But the under secretary is seeking to reshape the office to focus on the latest threats menacing Americans. At the top of that list is border security and fentanyl trafficking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In an exclusive interview with Bloomberg Government, Wainstein framed the changes as a necessary reset for an office that\u2019s had an overly broad mission since its inception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cNow 20 years later, it was time to step back and try to bring clarity to that mission and then look at our operations and make sure they are aligned with that mission,\u201d Wainstein said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Office of Intelligence and Analysis, haunted by past management problems and operational blunders, will change its information collection priorities, ramp up border-related interviews, and help build a classified watch list of drug cartel members under an overhaul<\/a> rolled out internally last month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The shift responds to perennial questions about I&A\u2019s value, as well as allegations of civil rights abuses. But while many homeland security professionals applaud the effort to refine the office\u2019s mission and oversight, several powerful lawmakers and other critics continue to call for more guardrails.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The unit specializes in using interviews and publicly available information to spot potential domestic threats, and serves as an information-sharing bridge between the federal government and state and local partners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Key lawmakers are reviewing the changes with some skepticism and say they have plans for additional oversight and legislation to make sure the office doesn\u2019t overstep when it collects intelligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I&A\u2019s reputation has been bruised in recent years after failing to adequately warn about the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capitol and producing intelligence reports on US journalists covering protests in 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Critics have at times derided it as a backwater in an intelligence and law enforcement landscape already served by the FBI, the National Security Agency, and others with longer histories and more expansive intelligence collection authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Wainstein took the helm in 2022 and announced an organizational shakeup<\/a> last year to bolster oversight of I&A\u2019s intelligence collection practices. Now the office is making meatier changes to day-to-day operations to make sure it\u2019s putting resources where it can have the highest impact, he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I&A\u2019s \u201chuman intelligence\u201d program, which faced congressional scrutiny<\/a> last year, will narrow its scope to make border- and fentanyl-related field interviews a priority. The idea is to lean into I&A\u2019s strengths \u2014 including its departmental connections with Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement \u2014 to ensure its work is serving a need within the intelligence community and for state and local partners, Wainstein said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Recent examples suggest this approach is paying off. I&A noted, for instance, that it interviewed a foreign national in DHS custody to get information on a smuggling information, and it shared information with CBP that helped the agency apprehend a murder suspect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere\u2019s nothing backwater about this place,\u201d Wainstein said. \u201cIf you look at the threats that are most pronounced, that are the focus of public attention and government attention, many of them are right in our wheelhouse.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n I&A will also refocus its open-source intelligence program, which uses public information, including social media, to identify threats. Collectors will now zoom out to follow big-picture threat trends rather than trying to provide specific warnings about individual events. That\u2019s in part because I&A\u2019s relatively limited size and collection authorities leave it \u201chandicapped\u201d in its ability to adequately warn about individual threats, Wainstein said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With limited resources and intense scrutiny of open-source intelligence collection methods \u2014 as some lawmakers worry of political targeting on social media \u2014 it makes sense to focus on the broader, strategic analysis, said John Cohen, who led I&A earlier in the Biden administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe question is if there\u2019s another Jan. 6-type event where there was information that was predictive of an attack, whether I&A will be forced to reconsider that decision,\u201d Cohen said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Wainstein has a tough sales pitch ahead for skeptics on Capitol Hill and in the civil liberties community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Spencer Reynolds, a former DHS official now at the Brennan Center for Justice, credited the office for \u201ctaking steps to rein in\u201d its collection of open-source intelligence but argued that the department and Congress must step in to further narrow I&A\u2019s work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The office should emphasize its role as a coordinator among federal, state, and local law enforcement and intelligence agencies, while moving away from collecting and distributing raw intelligence, Reynolds said. Many lawmakers also have deep reservations about I&A\u2019s work, though they acknowledged they are still reviewing the latest changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThey believe they have the authority to do the things that we don\u2019t believe they have the authority to do,\u201d Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in an interview. \u201cAnd the bigger problem with it is that it\u2019s not just a civil liberties issue, it\u2019s an oversight issue.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rubio led a push to throttle I&A\u2019s intelligence collection authority in last year\u2019s annual defense policy bill. The effort was unsuccessful, but the final legislation did set limits on the office\u2019s domestic terrorism program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe\u2019re going to keep trying, we\u2019re going to keep looking at it,\u201d he said. \u201cAnd either a change in administration or a change in Congress will help us address it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n A recent legal battle didn\u2019t help DHS build trust among lawmakers. The department last year convened an \u201cexperts group<\/a>\u201d to help guide its intelligence and counterterrorism work. Republican lawmakers accused DHS of stocking the group with members they consider partisan, including former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The conservative America First Legal filed suit, alleging the group\u2019s creation violated a federal law governing advisory commissions. DHS earlier this month agreed<\/a> to disband the group to resolve the litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House Homeland Security Committee\u2019s intelligence panel is planning a hearing to discuss legislative options to improve I&A, subcommittee Chairman August Pfluger (R-Texas) said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe want this to be an organic, \u2018Here\u2019s what we need to do,\u2019\u201d Pfluger said in an interview. \u201cIf there are issues, let\u2019s hear from past administrations. Let\u2019s hear from this administration. Let\u2019s talk about it in a bipartisan way.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n I&A and the department as a whole are overdue for legislation updating their mission and legal authorities in light of evolving threats, said Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense Executive Director Asha George, who was part of the experts group. Wainstein\u2019s effort to improve the office in the meantime will take time to show results, she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt\u2019s hard to snap your fingers and immediately create change in any part of the federal government,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n