Up next in 10
Are foreign adversaries outpacing US counterintelligence efforts? Experts warn of aggressive tactics exploiting our open society. A whole-of-government approach is crucial to protect American secrets and security. #Counterintelligence #NationalSecurity #ForeignSpies #USSecrets #Intelligence
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:01
All right. You're working on, I think,
0:03
some of the most fundamental changes
0:05
that we're going to witness in America.
0:06
One of those is reforming our counter
0:09
intelligence evidence so we're not
0:10
abusing Americans, but actually focused
0:12
on the real threats like terrorists and
0:14
foreign spies. Tell us what's key to the
0:17
effort and what you're working on right
0:18
now.
0:19
Well, I think we have to sort of
0:20
reposture. We we've been in this um sort
0:23
of sort of postcold war, pre 911 type of
0:27
posture. And what we know is that our
0:29
adversaries are very aggressive and are
0:31
outpacing us with counter intelligence
0:32
threats and stealing our secrets.
0:34
They're taking advantage of our open
0:35
society. And what we know is that um we
0:38
we just need to adopt in my opinion a
0:41
whole of government approach across the
0:43
enterprise of the IC and law
0:45
enforcement. We bring that together and
0:47
we think we can we can achieve a much
0:48
better ro more robust effort on counter
0:51
intelligence. And here's what I would
0:53
say is that uh Cash Patel and company
0:55
the FBI have done a tremendous job and
0:58
particularly lately apprehending some
1:00
pretty bad actors as we've seen some of
1:01
these things um has materialized. For
1:04
example, you know, the threats with with
1:05
regard to um Michigan military base
1:09
where you had some Chinese property
1:11
owners adjacent to a military
1:13
installation. We saw another issue where
1:15
the US Secret Service intercepted at the
1:18
uh um an attempt to hack phone systems
1:23
at the um UN General Assembly. And
1:26
there's a there's a whole host of other
1:28
issues where the the FBI has really
1:31
stepped up and and made those
1:34
apprehensions. But where we think we can
1:36
help that is in the the
1:39
non-apprehension, the non-arrest state
1:41
of counter intelligence. that is, you
1:43
know, sometimes we we have agencies that
1:45
are really really good at counter
1:46
intelligence. They don't have the
1:48
necessarily the law enforcement
1:49
authority, but they're really good at
1:51
exploiting networks, uh, and and and
1:54
maybe even turning some assets, maybe,
1:56
you know, doing some better work that
1:58
helps protect uh, Americans, American
2:00
assets, military secrets, things of this
2:03
nature, and also gives us a better
2:04
insight into how those nations are
2:07
positioned here at home. And that might
2:09
not necessarily end up in an arrest. it
2:12
might uh help us to exploit an existing
2:14
network and give us better um insights
2:17
into say for example China or Russia
2:19
that are operating here really with
2:21
impunity because of our open society.
2:23
They use that against us. And so what
2:24
we're proposing is that we augment the
2:27
FBI and increase their bandwidth to
2:30
address these counter intelligence
2:31
threats. We think that's a really good
2:33
way to help shore up one of the biggest
2:35
vulnerabilities that we have and it is
2:37
really the result of our free and open
2:39
society and and you have countries like
2:41
China and Russia and Iran and others
2:43
that are really good at exploiting that
2:46
and turning it against us.
2:48
Yeah. And in more I've covered the
2:51
intelligence community for about 35
2:52
years as a journalist. In the last year
2:54
or two, I've heard so much more concern
2:56
that there are domestic interests here
2:58
and they play out with protests and
2:59
activities, but they may have an
3:01
increasing alliance with our enemies
3:03
overseas. Are you're seeing more Iran,
3:06
China, Venezuela, Russia, uh, and bad
3:09
actors like that, North Korea, uh, uh,
3:11
engaging with American assets and trying
3:13
to use them as proxies on our soil.
3:16
Yeah, I think there is a whole network
3:18
of both state and non-state actors that
3:22
bring that to bear here in the United
3:23
States that is to exploit um you know
3:27
any kind of political divide that might
3:29
exist or schisms that may exist in in
3:32
even within a a political party. So they
3:35
kind of help seow discord. We've seen
3:36
malign influence from state actors that
3:39
include China and Russia and Iran. But
3:42
then there's also the non-state actor
3:44
that can be doing the bidding of a
3:46
nation state. For example, what what if
3:47
you had let's say Russia was was
3:50
essentially uh paying for cyber attacks
3:53
against certain targets or that China
3:55
might be doing the same thing. China
3:57
might be mobilizing diaspora that lives
3:59
here in the United States maybe United
4:01
States citizens, but they have this
4:02
underlying allegiance to the mother
4:04
country and and and China seeks to
4:06
exploit that. We need to we need to know
4:08
about it. We need to be in a position to
4:09
intercept those kinds of things and
4:11
protect our citizens here at home. And
4:14
we can we can broaden our scope and
4:16
bring in a lot of expertise that
4:18
provides a good level of augmentation to
4:20
what the FBI is already doing.
4:24
Some of these lights were blinking red
4:26
for a long time, but the Biden
4:28
administration really turned a blind eye
4:29
to it. And a lot of people say to me
4:31
today, we were when when President Trump
4:33
took over in January, we were very close
4:35
to being blind to a 911 scale sort of
4:37
intelligence failure. Uh were we that
4:40
close? And are we tightening the gaps
4:41
quickly with the changes that people
4:43
like Cash Patel and John Ratcliffe uh
4:46
and Pam Bondi are making?
4:48
Yeah, you know, I I couldn't speculate
4:49
on how close we are to a 911 type
4:52
incident because honestly, I don't know
4:54
what the next 911 looks like. I'm I'm
4:57
concerned about that because I can't
4:59
what we what we saw with 911 was
5:01
essentially a failure of imagination.
5:02
Who would have ever thought that people
5:05
would fly planes into buildings and
5:07
kill, you know, somewhere in the
5:08
neighborhood of 3,000 people? Who would
5:10
have ever thought that? We weren't
5:11
thinking like that. And so we've got to
5:13
sort of retrain ourselves and ask the
5:16
questions, what would we do if we had
5:18
all these resources at our disposal and
5:20
we wanted to potentially take down a
5:23
nation or even to degrade a nation to a
5:25
point that we elevate ourselves to a
5:27
preeminent status economically,
5:29
militarily, politically, whatever. What
5:31
would we do? I don't think we're asking
5:33
all the questions that we should. And I
5:35
don't think we're getting the answers
5:36
because the appropriate questions aren't
5:37
being asked. And so I think we need to
5:39
be careful that we don't lapse into a
5:42
pre 911 state of malaise that we're
5:44
always vigilant, hypervigilant to
5:46
threats and redteaming ourselves
5:49
constantly with the most creative
5:52
thinkers we can to really challenge our
5:55
national security experts on what we
5:57
need to do to protect the American
5:58
People.