DOCSLIB.ORG

Intelligence Reform: a Question of Balance John D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

PUBLICATION Intelligence Reform: A Question of Balance John D. Bansemer August 2005 Program on Information Resources Policy Center for Information Policy Research Harvard University The Program on Information Resources Policy is jointly sponsored by Harvard University and the Center for Information Policy Research. Chairman Managing Director Anthony G. Oettinger John C. B. LeGates John D. Bansemer, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force, is currently assigned to the National Security Council staff. Previously, he was commander of the 23rd Information Operations Squadron, Air Force Information Warfare Center. He has also served on the Air Staff, where he developed defensive information warfare doctrine and policy. He prepared this report while serving as an Air Force National Defense Fellow with the Program in 2004–2005. Copyright © 2005 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Not to be reproduced in any form without written consent from the Program on Information Resources Policy, Harvard University, Maxwell Dworkin 125, 33 Oxford Street, Cambridge MA 02138. (617) 495-4114 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.pirp.harvard.edu ISBN 1-879716-94-1 P-05-2 October 2005 PROGRAM ON INFORMATION RESOURCES POLICY Harvard University Center for Information Policy Research Affiliates AT&T Corp. PDS Consulting Australian Telecommunications Users Group PetaData Holdings, Ltd. BellSouth Corp. Samara Assoc. The Boeing Company Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Booz Allen Hamilton Flom LLP Center for Excellence in Education Strategy Assistance Services Commission of the European Communities TOR LLC Critical Path TransMedia Exchange CyraCom International United States Government: Ellacoya Networks, Inc. Department of Commerce Hanaro Telecom Corp. (Korea) National Telecommunications and Hearst Newspapers Information Administration Hitachi Research Institute (Japan) Department of Defense IBM Corp. National Defense University Korea Telecom Department of Health and Human Lee Enterprises, Inc. Services Lexis–Nexis National Library of Medicine John and Mary R. Markle Foundation Department of the Treasury MITRE Corp. Office of the Comptroller of the Motorola, Inc. Currency National Security Research, Inc. Federal Communications Commission NEC Corp. (Japan) National Security Agency NEST–Boston United States Postal Service Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp. Verizon Acknowledgments The author gratefully acknowledges the time and effort of all the people who reviewed and commented critically on the draft version of this report. Raymond Alden Tad Oelstrom Lorry Fenner Richard Posner Oswald H. Ganley Nicholas Rostow Anthony Green F.M. Scherer David Hayes Suzanne Streeter Chris Lusk Aras Suziedelis Lionel Olmer These reviewers, as well as others who wish to remain anonymous and the Program’s Affiliates, are not responsible for or necessarily in agreement with the views expressed here, nor should they be blamed for any errors of fact or interpretation. If there was a consistent theme to comments I received it was to make explicit recommendations for reforming the intelligence community (IC). I found nearly all of the recommendations proposed by several of the reviewers congenial. These recommendations ran the gamut from better integration of training and education programs across the IC, to improved cultural awareness of IC personnel, to the need to prioritize limited resources, to the critical importance of hiring capable personnel and strong leaders. I avoided recommendations for two reasons. First, multiple studies and commissions examining the IC have made numerous recommendations over the past fifty years to improve the operation of the IC. More recommendations on my part would only add to the cacophony of reform recommendations already in the public square. This leads to the second, more important reason for avoiding recommendations – the intended focus of my report was to elucidate why change appears to be so hard within the IC and to describe the potential consequences of reforms that only address certain aspects of the IC. Thus, while I was unable to incorporate all of the feedback I received into this report, I’m extremely appreciative for the thoughtful critiques I received. I would like to thank Margaret MacDonald for her patience and assistance throughout the editing process. Her comments and suggestions were always on target and helped clarify and often simplify multiple aspects of this report. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the U.S. Air Force for having the institutional wisdom to allow a number of Air Force officers to participate in fellowships with prestigious academic institutions throughout the country. I am especially grateful to the Air Force for the opportunity to interact with the faculty and staff of Harvard and other universities on a broad range of important and timely national security issues. vi The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the author and should not be construed as an official position of the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other government agency or department. Contents Page Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................................v Contents ...................................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................xi Chapter One: A Need for Change? ...............................................................................................1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope and Organization................................................................................................... 4 Chapter Two: Goldwater–Nichols as a Model for Intelligence Reform ....................................7 2.1 Why Goldwater–Nichols? ............................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 The Failure of Joint Action.................................................................................. 9 2.1.2 JCS Structure..................................................................................................... 13 2.1.3 The Poor Quality of Joint Personnel ................................................................. 14 2.2 Goldwater–Nichols Legislation..................................................................................... 16 2.3 Legislative Effectiveness............................................................................................... 18 2.3.1 The Effectiveness of Joint Action ..................................................................... 18 2.3.1.1 Operation Desert Storm.................................................................................. 19 2.3.1.2 Operation Allied Force................................................................................... 21 2.3.1.3 Analysis.......................................................................................................... 23 2.3.2 The Strength of Joint Advice............................................................................. 24 2.3.3 The Quality of Joint Personnel.......................................................................... 25 2.4 The Success of Goldwater–Nichols............................................................................... 27 Chapter Three: Reforming Intelligence: A Fifty Year Effort ...................................................29 3.1 IC Origins: The National Security Act of 1947............................................................. 30 3.2 Early Studies of the IC .................................................................................................. 31 3.2.1 Intelligence Survey Group (Dulles–Jackson–Correa Report) ........................... 31 3.2.2 The First Hoover Commission .......................................................................... 32 3.2.3 The Second Hoover Commission...................................................................... 33 3.2.4 Executive Branch Activity 1955–1963 ............................................................. 34 3.3 The 1970s ...................................................................................................................... 35 3.3.1 The Schlesinger Report ..................................................................................... 35 3.3.2 The Murphy Commission.................................................................................. 38 3.3.3 The Church Committee ..................................................................................... 39 viii 3.3.4 The Pike Committee.......................................................................................... 40 3.3.5 The Rockefeller Commission............................................................................ 41 3.3.6 Results............................................................................................................... 42 3.4 The 1980s ...................................................................................................................... 43 3.5 The 1990s ...................................................................................................................... 43 3.5.1 The Aspin–Brown Commission .......................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Directors of Central Intelligence As Leaders of the U.S

    Directors of Central Intelligence As Leaders of the U.S

    All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed in this book are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Central Intel- ligence Agency or any other US government entity, past or present. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US government endorsement of the authors’ factual statements and interpretations. The Center for the Study of Intelligence The Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI) was founded in 1974 in response to Director of Central Intelligence James Schlesinger’s desire to create within CIA an organization that could “think through the functions of intelligence and bring the best intellects available to bear on intelli- gence problems.” The Center, comprising professional historians and experienced practitioners, attempts to document lessons learned from past operations, explore the needs and expectations of intelligence consumers, and stimulate serious debate on current and future intelligence challenges. To support these activities, CSI publishes Studies in Intelligence and books and monographs addressing historical, operational, doctrinal, and theoretical aspects of the intelligence profession. It also administers the CIA Museum and maintains the Agency’s Historical Intelligence Collection. Comments and questions may be addressed to: Center for the Study of Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency Washington, DC 20505 Printed copies of this book are available to requesters outside the US government from: Government Printing Office (GPO) Superintendent of Documents P.O. Box 391954 Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 Phone: (202) 512-1800 E-mail: [email protected] ISBN: 1-929667-14-0 The covers: The portraits on the front and back covers are of the 19 directors of central intelligence, beginning with the first, RAdm.
  • Executive Order 12036 1-11. The

    Executive Order 12036 1-11. The

    Executive~ Order 12036 Proposed Executive Order Reason for Change 1-11. The Department of Defense. 1.11 The Department of Defense. The Secretary of The Secretary of Defense Defense shall: shall: 1-1101. Collect national (a) Collect national Technical change. foreign intelligence and be foreign intelligence and be responsive to collection tasking responsive to collection tasking by the NITC. by the Director of Central · Intelligence; I I 1-1102. Collect, produce (b) Collect, produce and Technical change. and disseminate foreign military disseminate military and and military-related intelligence military-related foreign intelli­ information, including scien- · gence and counterintelligence as tific, technical, political, required for execution of the geographic and economic. informa­ Secretary's responsibilities; tion as required for execution of the Secretary's responsibilities; 1-1103. Conduct programs (c) Conduct programs and and missions necessary to fulfill missions necessary to fulfill national and tactical foreign national, departmental and intelligence requirements; tactical foreign intelligence requirements; 43 E~ecutive Order 12036 Proposed ~x e c~ t ive Orae r Reason for Change (1.11 Continued) 1-1104. Conduct counter­ (d) Conduct counter­ Unnecessary language intelligence activities in intelligence activities in eliminated. support of Department of Defense support of Department of Defense components outside the United components outside the United States in coordination with the States in coordination with the CIA, and within the United States CIA, and within the United States in coordination with the FBI in coordination with the FBI, pursuant to procedures agreed pursuant to procedures agreed upon by the Secretary of Defense upon by the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, and and the Attorney General; produce and disseminate counter­ intelligence studies and reports; 1-1105.
  • Congressional Oversight of Intelligence: Background and Selected Options for Further Reform

    Congressional Oversight of Intelligence: Background and Selected Options for Further Reform

    Congressional Oversight of Intelligence: Background and Selected Options for Further Reform December 4, 2018 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45421 SUMMARY R45421 Congressional Oversight of Intelligence: December 4, 2018 Background and Selected Options for Further Michael E. DeVine Reform Analyst in Intelligence and National Security Prior to the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) in 1976 and 1977, respectively, Congress did not take much interest in conducting oversight of the Intelligence Community (IC). The Subcommittees on the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the congressional Armed Services Committees had nominal oversight responsibility, though Congress generally trusted that IC could more or less regulate itself, conduct activities that complied with the law, were ethical, and shared a common understanding of national security priorities. Media reports in the 1970s of the CIA’s domestic surveillance of Americans opposed to the war in Vietnam, in addition to the agency’s activities relating to national elections in Chile, prompted Congress to change its approach. In 1975, Congress established two select committees to investigate intelligence activities, chaired by Senator Frank Church in the Senate (the “Church Committee”), and Representative Otis Pike in the House (the “Pike Committee”). Following their creation, the Church and Pike committees’ hearings revealed the possible extent of the abuse of authority by the IC and the potential need for permanent committee oversight focused solely on the IC and intelligence activities. SSCI and HPSCI oversight contributed substantially to Congress’s work to legislate improvements to intelligence organization, programs, and processes and it enabled a more structured, routine relationship with intelligence agencies.
  • American Intelligence Journal Vol 34

    American Intelligence Journal Vol 34

    AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE JOURNAL THE MAGAZINE FOR INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS The Cyber Threat: The Future of Intelligence in a Wired World __NMIF__________________________ Vol. 34, No. 1, 2017 American THE MAGAZINE FOR INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS Intelligence Journal Vol. 34, No. 1 2017 ISSN 0883-072X NMIF Board of Directors LTG (USA, Ret) Mary A. Legere, Chair Col (USAF, Ret) John Clark, President Col (USAF, Ret) William Arnold, Vice President Col (USAF, Ret) Michael Grebb, Treasurer Col (USAF, Ret) Carla Bass, Director LTC (USA, Ret) Steve Iwicki, Director Mr. Don Bolser, Director Dr. (Col, USAF, Ret) Eva S. Jenkins CDR (USNR, Ret) Calland Carnes, Director Capt (USNR, Ret) Stephanie Leung, Director Mr. Dennis DeMolet, Director Kel McClanahan, Esq., Director Lt Col (USAF, Ret) James Eden, Director Brad Moss, Esq., Director COL (USA, Ret) Michael Ferguson, Director Capt (USNR) Rick Myllenbeck, Director Col (USAF, Ret) Owen Greenblatt CDR (USNR) Louis Tucker, Director COL (USA, Ret) David Hale, Director COL (USA, Ret) Gerald York, Director Editor - COL (USA, Ret) William C. Spracher, Ed.D. Production Manager - Ms. Debra Hamby-Davis Brig Gen (USAF, Ret) Scott Bethel, Director Emeritus Dr. Forrest R. Frank, Director Emeritus MajGen (USMC, Ret) Michael Ennis, Director Emeritus LTG (USA, Ret) Patrick M. Hughes, Director Emeritus Col (USAF, Ret) William Huntington, Director Emeritus The American Intelligence Journal (AIJ) is published by the National Military Intelligence Foundation (NMIF), a non-profit, non-political foundation supporting American intelligence professionals and the U.S. Intelligence Community, primarily through educational means. NMIF believes in the power of the intelligence mission to inspire young people to join the intelligence profession as a career of service to the nation.
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 108 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

    Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 108 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 108 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 150 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2004 No. 139 House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 4, 2005, at 12 noon. Senate WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2004 The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was generations. Thank You for Your pro- ple with issues and wisdom to seek called to order by the President pro tection. You make wars to cease, de- Your guidance. tempore (Mr. STEVENS). stroying the weapons of those who Bless and strengthen the many staff- fight against Your purposes. Today, ers who provide the wind beneath the PRAYER guide our lawmakers with Your justice wings of our leaders. Bring to them a The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- and keep them as the apple of Your bountiful harvest for their many fered the following prayer: eye. Instruct them in Your wisdom and months of faithful toil. Let us pray. hide them under the shadow of Your Bless all who mourn the loss of Stan Faithful God, who stretches out the wings. Help them to find light in Your Kimmitt. He will be greatly missed. Earth above the waters, Your Name is laws and knowledge in Your instruc- We pray this in Your holy Name. great and Your goodness extends to all tions. Give them patience as they grap- Amen. NOTICE If the 108th Congress, 2d Session, adjourns sine die on or before December 10, 2004, a final issue of the Congres- sional Record for the 108th Congress, 2d Session, will be published on Monday, December 20, 2004, in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks.
  • The CIA Mandate and the War on Terror

    The CIA Mandate and the War on Terror

    The CIA Mandate and the War on Terror Grant T. Harrist I. INTRODUCTION The American intelligence infrastructure is in the midst of its most radical overhaul since the formation of the modem intelligence community following World War II. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004,1 the political compromise resulting from the nation's post-September 11 intelligence soul searching, has fundamentally transformed the U.S. intelligence bureaucracy. Yet the policy debate to date has paid insufficient attention to whether the fifty-eight-year-old mandate of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) requires amendment in light of the contemporary fight against terrorism. A primary impetus for reform of the U.S. intelligence infrastructure was the breakdown of critical distinctions upon which the division of labor among national security agencies is based. The current national security context and the war on terrorism have blurred the line between intelligence and law enforcement, and it has become hackneyed to note that terrorist plots do not observe the foreign and domestic divisions that exist in the jurisdictional duties of U.S. agencies. Still an important area of analysis has so far escaped any serious public debate or legislative attention: Do the limits of CIA authority outlined in the National Security Act of 19472 meet the needs of the modem national security environment? Policymakers should revisit the CIA's statutory mandate in light of the current struggle against terrorism in order to clarify the limits of CIA authority. t J.D. expected 2005, Yale Law School; M.P.A. expected 2005, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University.
  • Allen Dulles: Reluctant Manager

    Allen Dulles: Reluctant Manager

    All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed in this book are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Central Intel- lig ence Agency or any other US government entity, past or present. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US government endorsement of the authors’ factual statements and interpretations. Th e Center for the Study of Intelligence The Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI) was founded in 1974 in response to Director of Central Intelligence James Schlesinger’s desire to create within CIA an organization that could “think through the functions of intelligence and bring the best intellects available to bear on intelli- gence problems.” The Center, comprising professional historians and experienced practitioners, attempts to document lessons learned from past operations, explore the needs and expectations of intelligence consumers, and stimulate serious debate on current and future intelligence challenges. To support these activities, CSI publishes Studies in Intelligence and books and monographs addressing historical, operational, doctrinal, and theoretical aspects of the intelligence profession. It also administers the CIA Museum and maintains the Agency’s Historical Intelligence Collection. Comments and questions may be addressed to: Center for the Study of Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency Washington, DC 20505 Printed copies of this book are available to requesters outside the US government from: Government Printing Office (GPO) Superintendent of Documents P.O. Box 391954 Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 Phone: (202) 512-1800 E-mail: [email protected] ISBN: 1-929667-14-0 The covers: The portraits on the front and back covers are of the 19 directors of central intelligence, beginning with the first, RAdm.
  • U.S. Intelligence Reform a Bureaucratic Politics Approach

    U.S. Intelligence Reform a Bureaucratic Politics Approach

    University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2010 U.S. Intelligence Reform A Bureaucratic Politics Approach Bonnie M. Schickler University of Central Florida Part of the Political Science Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Schickler, Bonnie M., "U.S. Intelligence Reform A Bureaucratic Politics Approach" (2010). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 1669. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/1669 U.S. INTELLIGENCE REFORM: A BUREAUCRATIC POLITICS APPROACH by BONNIE M. SCHICKLER B.A. University of Central Florida, 2008 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Political Science in the College of Science at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2010 © 2010 Bonnie Schickler ii ABSTRACT This study investigates the current bureaucratic struggles that exist within the U.S. intelligence community as a result of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004. The first part of this research examines the history of intelligence reform in the United States beginning with the National Security Act of 1947. The second part provides an in- depth discussion of the 2004 legislation as well as an examination of the main bureaucratic conflicts that have arisen between the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the rest of the U.S.
  • Bansemer: Intelligence Reform: a Question of Balance

    Bansemer: Intelligence Reform: a Question of Balance

    Brig Gen Kenneth Newton Walker Kenneth Walker enlisted at Denver, Colorado, on 15 December 1917. He took flying training at Mather Field, California, getting his commission and wings in November 1918. After a tour in the Philippines, he returned to Langley Field, Virginia, in February 1925 with a subsequent assignment in December 1928 to attend the Air Corps Tactical School. Retained on the faculty as a bombardment in- structor, Walker became the epitome of the strategic thinkers at the school and coined the revolutionary airpower “creed of the bomber”: “A well-planned, well-organized and well-flown air force attack will constitute an offensive that cannot be stopped.” Following attendance at the Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, in 1933 and promotion to major, he served for three years at Hamilton Field, California, and another three years at Luke Field, Ford Island, and Wheeler Field, Hawaii. Walker returned to the United States in January 1941 as assistant chief of the Plans Division for the chief of the Air Corps in Washington, DC. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel in July 1941 and colonel in March 1942. During this time, when he worked in the Operations Division of the War Department General Staff, he coauthored the air-campaign strategy known as Air War Plans Division—Plan 1, the plan for organizing, equipping, deploying, and employing the Army Air Forces to defeat Germany and Japan should the United States become embroiled in war. The authors completed this monu- mental undertaking in less than one month, just before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor—and the United States was, in fact, at war.
  • The National Security Council: an Organizational Assessment

    The National Security Council: an Organizational Assessment

    The National Security Council: An Organizational Assessment Richard A. Best Jr. Specialist in National Defense December 28, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL30840 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress The National Security Council: An Organizational Assessment Summary The National Security Council (NSC) was established by statute in 1947 to create an inter- departmental body to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security so as to enable the military services and the other departments and agencies of the Government to cooperate more effectively in matters involving the national security. Currently, statutory members of the Council are the President, Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and, since 2007, the Secretary of Energy; but, at the President’s request, other senior officials participate in NSC deliberations. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence are statutory advisers. The President clearly holds final decision-making authority in the executive branch. Over the years, however, the NSC staff has emerged as a major factor in the formulation (and at times in the implementation) of national security policy. Similarly, the head of the NSC staff, the National Security Adviser, has played important, and occasionally highly public, roles in policymaking. This report traces the evolution of the NSC from its creation to the present. The organization and influence of the NSC have varied significantly from one Administration to another, ranging from highly structured and formal systems to loose-knit teams of experts.
  • Trends and Predictions in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 3

    Trends and Predictions in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 3

    A HOOVER INSTITUTION ESSAY Trends and Predictions in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance THE FAA AND BEYOND DAVID S. KRIS Aegis Paper Series No. 1601 It is a strange time for national security. Beginning in 2013, Edward Snowden’s leaks caused the US government to significantly reduce the scope, and increase the transparency, of its foreign intelligence surveillance, while the president urged caution and restraint in response to the extraordinary rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). At the same time, US communications providers sought additional reforms and reduced their cooperation with surveillance directives in important cases. Finally, anti-surveillance politicians, on the right and left of the US political spectrum, prospered as part of a burgeoning populist movement. In Western Europe, by contrast, ISIL’s rise spurred a significant and overt expansion of surveillance authorities. European governments, particularly the United Kingdom, began National Security, Technology, and Law and Technology, Security, National making increasingly strident demands for communications data from US providers. And the European Union struck down the safe-harbor regime for trans-Atlantic data sharing on the grounds that US surveillance laws do not adequately protect privacy. Despite increased transparency, as of January 2016, the immense technical and legal complexity of US surveillance law continues to challenge informed debate across all of these fronts. In this highly charged and confused environment, Congress will soon take up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act (FAA), which is set to expire at the end of 2017. I make six predictions about the issues likely to dominate that legislative process.
  • Trends and Predictions in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance: the FAA and Beyond

    Trends and Predictions in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance: the FAA and Beyond

    ARTICLES Trends and Predictions in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance: The FAA and Beyond David S. Kris* It is a strange time for national security. Beginning in 2013, Edward Snowden’s leaks caused the U.S. government to significantly reduce the scope, and in- crease the transparency, of its foreign intelligence surveillance, while the president urged caution and restraint in response to the extraordinary rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). At the same time, U.S. communi- cations providers sought additional reforms and reduced their cooperation with surveillance directives in important cases. Finally, anti-surveillance politicians, on the right and left of the U.S. political spectrum, prospered as part of a burgeoning populist movement. In Western Europe, by contrast, ISIL’s rise spurred a significant and overt expansion of surveillance authorities. European governments, particularly the United Kingdom, began making increasingly strident demands for communications data from U.S. providers. And the Euro- pean Union struck down the safe-harbor regime for trans-Atlantic data sharing on the grounds that U.S. surveillance laws do not adequately protect privacy. Despite increased transparency, as of January 2016, the immense technical and legal complexity of U.S. surveillance law continues to challenge informed debate across all of these fronts. In this highly charged and confused environment, Congress will soon take up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act (FAA), which is set to expire at the end of 2017. I make six predictions about the issues likely to dominate that legislative process. Most of those issues concern incremental change, and a range of possible outcomes well within existing legal and policy * David S.