Section 2.4: Intelligence Community
“An incoming conservative President needs to use these intelligence authorities aggressively to anticipate and thwart our adversaries, including Russia, Iran, North Korea, and especially China, while maintaining counterterrorism tools that have demonstrated their effectiveness.”
He will run into the same problem I outlined in section 2.3 – it’s going to be difficult to treat Russia as an enemy, when the figurehead they’ve chosen to be President is beholden to Putin, praises him regularly, and has suggested he’d “encourage Putin to do whatever the hell he wants.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.4: Intelligence Community here.
“The American people are understandably frustrated by the fact that those who abuse power are rarely held to account for their actions.”
I’ll remark when I stop laughing. Yes, yes we are. Now tell me why you’re supporting a 34-times convicted felon (as of the time of this writing), accused traitor, adjudicated rapist, morally bankrupt, riot-inciting fraud whom you are advocating literally installing as a dictator? HOLD TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.4: Intelligence Community here.
“This must change, beginning with leadership that is both committed to ensuring that these agencies faithfully execute the laws of the land under the Constitution and resolved to punish and remove any officials who have abused the public trust.”
“Abusing the public trust” is painting with a broad brush, here. And “punish”? By what means? Fines? Prison? Death? Is it “abusing public trust” if you question the regime? I expect so.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.4: Intelligence Community here.
“Finally, future IC leadership must address the widely promoted “woke” culture that has spread throughout the federal government with identity politics and “social justice” advocacy replacing such traditional American values as patriotism, colorblindness, and even workplace competence.”
There’s the “woke” boogeyman again. I touched on the “colorblindness” myth in Section 1. Carmack does not make any suggestions as to how the Intelligence Community should fight “woke”ness, nor does he elaborate on what the actual problem is, other than he appears to take issue with racial sensitivity practices. I dislike the implication that those who work towards social justice are not patriots; particularly when this entire manifesto promotes party over country, and loyalty to the President rather than to the United States, which is an insult to the Constitution and the values we were founded upon. Project 2025 is not a plan written by patriots, it is a plan written by fascists masquerading as nationalists.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.4: Intelligence Community here.
“The President-Elect should choose a Deputy Director [of the CIA] who, without needing Senate confirmation, can immediately begin to implement the President’s agenda.”
In the previous paragraph, he mentions the Director of the CIA as well should do the same. Note that he’s advocating for bypassing Senate confirmation requirements for who is installed at the head of the agency.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.4: Intelligence Community here.
“Not all careers in espionage are created equal, and the Director should incentivize and reward applicants who are willing to accept high risks over those who are climbing the ranks simply by doing business as usual.”
He’s saying here that the CIA should prioritize rogue new agent applicants over longtime agents who follow the rules. Seems risky to me.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.4: Intelligence Community here.
“Finally, the human resources and talent management systems for onboarding purposes at the ODNI, CIA, and some other elements of the IC are fundamentally broken. For example, according to current CIA Director William Burns, it recently took more than 600 days, on average, for a CIA applicant to receive his or her necessary security clearance. Although security clearance procedures have been somewhat improved in recent years and Burns has committed CIA to reducing that to no more than 180 days, degradation in other areas of the process has limited the IC’s capacity to attract qualified and needed expertise.”
Whoa, red flag! He’s arguing here that the CIA should relax their security clearance background checking process for employees in the name of attracting talent and filling positions more quickly. This could certainly introduce vulnerabilities. It DEFINITELY compromises security standards, increasing the risk of insider threats, espionage, or data leaks. If individuals with insufficient vetting are granted security clearance and later compromise sensitive operations or classified information, there could be significant political fallout. This could lead to congressional inquiries, increased oversight, and legal challenges for the CIA, especially if national security is demonstrably harmed.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.4: Intelligence Community here.
“In particular, the IC must restore confidence in its political neutrality to rectify the damage done by the actions of former IC leaders and personnel regarding the claims of Trump–Russia collusion following the 2016 election and the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop investigation and media revelations of its existence during the 2020 election.”
Let’s unpack that. For a couple of years, Trump got to shout “hoax” when it was suggested that his campaign colluded with Russia. His administration suppressed the Mueller report. The media even reported that there was “no collusion!” both at the time, and while Trump was in office and could control the narrative. By 2021, we were seeing the truth as more and more of Trump’s cronies turned states’ evidence to avoid prison time (see Paul Manafort, who admitted colluding with Russia as part of the Trump campaign.)
Further unpacking and full contextual analysis of Section 2.4: Intelligence Community here.
“Political leaders should avoid “manipulation-by-appointment,” a practice by which intelligence leaders are selected for their policy views or political loyalties instead of their skilled expertise.”
Are you okay, Carmack? Blink twice if you need help! I ask, because the above statement is the EXACT OPPOSITE of everything Project 2025 has argued for in the 247 pages I’ve read so far, including yourself. Project 2025 has argued for staffing the government with partisan loyalists to the President rather than the country so often that I had to assign it its own category.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.4: Intelligence Community here.
“Corporate America, technology companies, research institutions, and academia must be willing, educated partners in this generational fight to protect our national security interests, economic interests, national sovereignty, and intellectual property as well as the broader rules-based order—all while avoiding the tendency to cave to the left-wing activists and investors who ignore the China threat and increasingly dominate the corporate world.”
He’s suggesting here that industries involved in areas like cutting-edge technology and intellectual property are susceptible to foreign influence and theft, especially from China, so they must be mindful of that possibility (true). The mention of investors implies concern that financial motivations in China or from Chinese partnerships might outweigh considerations of national security or ethical concerns in corporate decision-making. It does seem disingenuous for Carmack to point fingers at the Left for making ethically dubious business decisions involving with China when Ivanka Trump received 41 fast-tracked trademarks from China after her father was elected President.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.4: Intelligence Community here.