Lawmakers on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have advanced a slew of federal workforce bills, one of which aims to make some significant changes to the federal probationary period.

The GOP-led EQUALS Act was one of about a dozen bills that passed favorably out of the committee on Tuesday. If enacted, it would require new federal employees to serve a two-year probationary period, doubling the length that most newly hired or promoted currently face.

Under the bill, agencies also would have to actively certify that a probationary employee “advances the public interest” before the employee can become officially tenured, while those who are not certified would be removed from their jobs. The legislation advanced in a party line vote of 24-19.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas), who introduced the legislation, said the EQUALS Act builds on an April executive order from President Donald Trump, which similarly required agencies to review and actively sign off on probationary workers’ continued employment.

“President Trump could not be more right,” Gill said. “Probationary periods and trial periods are long-standing, essential tools to ensure newly hired federal employees are sufficiently performing before their appointments are finalized permanently.”

Democrats on the committee criticized the Republicans’ bill, arguing that extending the length of the probationary period would negatively impact federal recruitment, as well as open the doors to more terminations of new hires in the government.

“This bill would double the time during which federal employees have limited due process and appeal rights as probationary employees. During this time they could be fired within 30 days’ notice, they have limited rights to an attorney or representative and they generally cannot appeal their removal,” Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia (R-Calif.) said Tuesday. “At a time when Donald Trump is attempting illegal mass firings and purging experts from agencies across our government, this bill is a dangerous step in the wrong direction.”

Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) added that the EQUALS Act would “give the Trump administration yet another tool to weaponize against federal employees who they perceive as ideological threats, and to continue efforts to destroy the non-partisan civil service.”

Gill, however, argued that the bill would not lead to mass terminations, but instead only make sure that new federal employees are carefully reviewed. He also pointed to a 2015 report from the Government Accountability Office, as well as a 2005 report from the Merit Systems Protection Board, both of which call for reforms to the probationary period.

“An employee can often work for the federal government for over 25 years,” Gill said. “Having an extra year of probationary status to ensure the right employee becomes tenured is a common sense, good government measure.”

During the committee meeting, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) motioned to strike the EQUALS Act and replace it with legislation to first require GAO to review effects of prior probationary period extensions before making any long-term changes. Lynch’s amendment was struck down by the committee’s Republican majority.

Legislation on official time advances

Committee Republicans also advanced a bill that would require agencies to report in greater detail the use of official time by federal employees governmentwide. The Official Time Reporting Act passed out of the committee in a vote of 24-19 along party lines.

If enacted, the bill would require all agencies to submit reports on how much official time is used in each fiscal year, and justify any potential increases in official time that may occur.

During the committee meeting, Republican lawmakers argued that official time takes away from employees’ job responsibilities. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the lead co-sponsor on the bill, also criticized the lack of agencies’ reporting on official time over the last several years.

The bill “will let the American people know exactly how much of their hard-earned money is spent not providing valuable service, but on federal employee union activities,” Foxx said.

Some committee Democrats, however, described the legislation as an attack on union rights. The lawmakers emphasized that official time is used for activities that support federal employees, while raising concerns about the possibility that the bill could let the Trump administration further limit union rights.

“This year under the Trump administration, federal employees have faced job insecurity, financial strain and the loss of collective bargaining agreements. This bill will make matters worse,” Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) said. “We all benefit when unions and their members are empowered to prevent and address retaliation, discrimination and sexual harassment.”

Generally, official time hours can go toward negotiating union contracts, meeting with management, filing grievances or representing employees dealing with management disputes. Under law, federal unions are allotted specific amounts of time and resources to conduct these activities.

Federal unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, have pushed back against the Trump administration’s characterization of official time as “taxpayer-funded union time,” calling it a misrepresentation.

During Tuesday’s meeting, Garcia argued that official time leads to lower staff turnover and higher employee morale, while also preventing potential legal costs down the road.

“Official time is work time that employees are allowed to use for making the workplace safe and protecting workers from discrimination or harassment,” he said.

Committee approves some bills with bipartisan support

In contrast, some legislation that the committee approved on Tuesday gained strong bipartisan support from lawmakers. That includes bills on training for federal supervisors, skills-based hiring of federal contractors and amending the system for relocation payments for federal employees.

The Federal Supervisor Education Act, for instance, unanimously advanced out of the Oversight committee in a vote of 43-0. If enacted, the legislation would require agencies to work with OPM to create training programs for newly hired or promoted agency managers and supervisors.

Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.), who introduced the legislation in October, argued during Tuesday’s meeting that many federal supervisors step into leadership roles without enough training, and with no clear expectations for how to adjust to a managerial role in government.

“Agencies promote strong technical employees into supervisory jobs, and then send them in blind,” Timmons said. “That leads to low productivity, uneven standards and a system where good employees feel unsupported and bad employees rarely face consequences.”

Timmons added that the legislation would result in “real, meaningful training,” rather than being “a slideshow or a checkbox exercise.”

Although he said he mostly agreed with the bill’s intentions, Walkinshaw proposed striking one provision of the legislation. The initial bill text included a requirement that supervisory training programs must include additional training on the probationary period — something that Walkinshaw argued was outside the bill’s scope.

Committee Republicans agreed to adopt Walkinshaw’s amendment, after saying that it would result in stronger bipartisan support for the bill. Ultimately, the legislation advanced unanimously, with the amendment included.

“I am a strong supporter of the goal of this legislation,” Walkinshaw said. “Almost all of the language will provide supervisors within the federal workforce the appropriate training and resources to ensure there are strong leaders within their respective agencies.”

The post Committee Republicans advance House bill to overhaul the federal probationary period first appeared on Federal News Network.

EXPERT PERSPECTIVE — About a week before being interviewed by Richard Bruce Cheney about whether I would be the right person to serve as his national security briefer, I broke a bone in my left foot. While bounding down the stairs at home in a rush not to be late to a meeting at the National Security Council, I missed a step. So, rather than spending the morning at The White House, I spent it at a doctor’s office getting a big, goofy, purple cast on my left leg. Fantastic. How better to exude to the Vice President of the United States that I would be competent as his President’s Daily Brief (PDB) briefer, than hobbling into the interview with a cast? Somehow, I got the job.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, the President and Vice President’s PDB briefers met and traveled with them six days a week, sometimes seven. We would awaken every morning around 1:00am to prepare what is known as the “Book” and accompanying material. The Book was the President’s Daily Brief itself, a brutally concise, relatively short collection of intelligence analyses produced at that time, by just the CIA; it went to a short list of designated policymakers. All who received it also got morning briefers to accompany and expand on the content as needed and to take taskings, but only those for the President and Vice President routinely traveled with them. In addition to the PDB, there was “behind-the-tab” material for all recipients except the President. In Cheney’s case, I decided—with zero supervision or coordination—what he also needed to see, per my judgement. Raw intel, press pieces, book summaries, graphics, and anything else that I thought could be useful.

I generally briefed the then-Vice President at the Naval Observatory, the official residence for U.S. vice presidents. But just a week into the job, I accompanied him on Marine Two to Camp David, where he would attend some meetings. Thus began a rapid, daily learning curve into who this man was - starting with how he treated others.

“Others” fell generally into two categories with little gray area between—those he respected and those he did not. People in both categories usually knew where they stood, and Cheney didn’t manifest different orientations toward people based on their societal stations in life. This was a man whose default setting was to show courtesy and respect toward others unless they convinced him otherwise. Every one of his ushers, central members of the residence staff, told me individually - with zero nudging from me - that they liked the Cheneys much more than they liked their predecessors. Why, I asked. Because the Cheneys always showed respect to them, their time demands, they told me. As for those in the other category? Many of us recall Cheney telling Senator Patrick Leahy to “go f*** yourself” on the Senate floor in 2004. He also bluntly expressed his opinions on a wide range of actors and even nations to me during our time together. Few if any fell into gray area.

Nominations for outstanding leaders in national security and intelligence are now open for the 2026 Cipher Brief Honors Dinner. Find out more here.

Cheney consistently hosted the longest of the PDB sessions across all PDB recipients of that Administration, a reflection of his intellectual curiosity, the endless stacks of books and other things he read, his many years of navigating the U.S. Government and geopolitics, and the fact that on most mornings, he went from his briefings with me to attending PDB sessions with his boss. I always had at least 30 minutes with him, and on mornings when events or travel altered the President’s schedule, my sessions could stretch beyond 90 minutes.

Something that was reflected in his time commitment to those PDB sessions was that, among being many things, Dick Cheney was an overachiever of the world-class order. Whatever task, duty, mission, strategic pursuit that might be in his cross hairs, he would be utterly prepared. This part of him of course helped land his stint as the youngest White House Chief of Staff in history, under President Gerald Ford.

Much has been written about Cheney’s role and actions in the immediate wake of 9-11; I came after, during the run up to and consequences following America’s second invasion of Iraq. Because of when I briefed him and the job I took immediately afterward in July 2003 - Chief of CIA’s Iraq enterprise covering military, political, leadership, and economic analysis - I draw from a unique combination of perspectives to offer context on the Iraq, Dick Cheney story. Some will be surprised by what I saw including during NSC meetings chaired by President Bush and attended by Cheney when I sat in as the 'plus-one' for the CIA Director or for the Director of National Intelligence.

On March 16, 2002, Dick Cheney said on NBC’s Meet the Press, “I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators . . . I think it [the invasion] will go relatively quickly . . . weeks rather than months.” As we now know, he - and other seniors in the Bush Administration - could not have been more wrong.

Not long after we invaded Iraq in March of 2003, violence there began to swell up, and soon thereafter the CIA enterprise I headed gave President Bush and Cheney - their first and highly unwelcome dose of the “I” word: insurgency. Early on, Bush and other Administration seniors explained the sources of the violence as “criminals, regime dead-enders, or trouble-makers” pushed into the country by Iraq and Syria as operatives. But in the summer of 2003, we put a PDB into the Oval Office arguing that an organized and indigenous insurgency was quickly developing. Feedback from Bush’s PDB briefer that morning was “The President was so angry he came off his chair. He wants a memo tomorrow morning recounting when we warned him this was coming.” A lot people worked overnight to produce that 4.5-page piece, which delivered what was asked.

At some point between that initial shock and late summer, fall of 2003, Cheney - whom we had briefed in more detail on the insurgency, told us “The President needs to hear this.” Consider that one of the Administration’s most vocal and influential advocates of invading Iraq, who had been on record saying the effort would be easy and short, had now turned to persuading Bush and his entire NSC that we faced an insurgency in Iraq. Cheney knew that this information, once it entered the public arena, would likely get himself as well as President Bush eviscerated by the media and by critics. But that seemed to matter little to him; the United States was underestimating what it was now facing in Iraq, and Cheney’s focus became aligning policy with reality.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

A few days before Veterans Day in 2003, someone in the CIA Director’s office told me there would be a briefing that day for Bush’s NSC on Iraq that I would lead. Cheney had facilitated this. I also was told I could take one analyst of my choice, but I knew some on the NSC would push back hard and would expect "in the weeds" details of our analysis, so I subbed myself out and sent two senior analysts who knew the weeds - a superlative military expert and a political-analyst counterpart.

It was a PhD and former Marine CIA military analyst in my Iraq enterprise who forced then Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld and others to accept that an insurgency was emerging in Iraq. The analyst’s most persuasive moment came when Rumsfeld argued forcefully that there were several and differing definitions of insurgency, making use of the word confusing at best and inaccurate at worst. That military analyst calmly but firmly summarized the two most widely accepted definitions and illustrated that the CIA’s conclusion was based on the one observed by Rumsfeld’s Department of Defense. The analyst also laid out premises needed to justify that definition, all of which all in the room were seeing. Bush declared acceptance, noted that NSC members had to be square with this reality among themselves, and requested all to avoid the word insurgency in public.

Let me close with an insight that sheds light on Cheney’s near obsession with going into Iraq to find WMD and then showing a level of comfort with enhanced interrogation techniques that many find appalling.

One morning after a PDB briefing with me, Cheney sat back and recounted some history following the Gulf War, during which he was Secretary of Defense. He reminded me with some energy that during interrogations of Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law Hussein Kamel, who defected temporarily, we learned that Iraq’s nuclear-weapons program was further along than we had assessed. Rather than a form of scolding for off-the-mark CIA analysis back then, this perspective he was sharing signaled an acknowledgement that I knew the weight of his role in persuading Bush ’43 to invade Iraq—and in his mind, he had good reason. If we were underestimating Saddam’s WMD program again and Osama bin Laden gained access to any part of it, the consequences for Americans would be catastrophic.

The Economist Magazine recently summarized the unwavering sense of duty to nation felt by Cheney. In the closing words of its obituary in reference to criticism about his posture toward countering terrorism, and on being wrong about WMD in Iraq, The Economist wrote: “He was unmoved . . . He was, as always, just doing his job. Trying to protect America.”

All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the US Government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US Government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.

• In 2003, the Department of Defense established the Under Secretary for Intelligence (amended in 2020 to the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Security); the office acts as a chapeau for Defense Intelligence. Its role in oversight of the Military Intelligence Program arguably could give it influence over the defense intelligence agencies and services, if the office leaned into its leadership role.
• In 2004, Congress amended the 1947 National Security Act and created the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), taking the role of manager for community intelligence from the Director of the CIA. This move did not reengineer how the IC is organized.

For nearly eighty years, we have been tinkering and adding to the IC but we have not fundamentally redrawn or refocused it. Now is the time to do that. Three critical junctures make it imperative that we rethink how the IC is organized and functions. Important technological advancements need to be the heart beat of how the IC does its work. Global conditions are emphasizing the need for gray zone work/cognitive warfare which currently is a side hustle of the IC and needs to become a focus. Finally, the IC has become too unwieldy and dispersed to have the impact it should.

Congress is proposing changes to the DNI, legislating procurement, and legislating definitions of covert warfare versus irregular warfare, but that remains piecemeal and not far reaching enough. As a whole, the IC has been directed to downsize. This is sorely needed as the overlap and bloated bureaucracies help to develop the go it alone mindset. A leaner IC will force integration.

Now is the time to go back to the drawing board and reimagine what our intelligence community should look like:

• Technology forward.
• More emphasis on publicly available information.
• More integrated and driven by USG foreign policy strategies that have clear goals.
• Closer ties between the Department of Defense and the rest of the intelligence community.
• Focus on irregular warfare, cognitive warfare, and gray zone activities.

A Technology-Driven IC

The heart of the new IC should be embodied in two new organizations that are retooled from existing structures: one that is an Open Source Center that curates all Open-source data; and one that is a technology hub that oversees and develops technology for the entire IC—a one stop shop.

The Open Source Center would be the heart of analysis for the new IC. It would be loosely modeled after the old Foreign Broadcasting Information Service (FBIS) that procured important open source articles and books and provided translations for the entire government during the Cold War era. Individuals working in this new agency would range from those without clearance to those with high clearance levels but the data would be all unclassified—until merged into a comprehensive story board. The data and tools would be accessible to the entire IC. The center would include the latest AI technology to help highlight anomalies. It would include data analysts from government, tech companies, and companies that are already working commercial data open source analysis.

The Open Source Center currently housed at the CIA and DIA’s Open Source organization would be the nucleus of the personnel for this work. Analysts and technology specialists would work together to gather the latest trends to feed the rest of the government. The center would work with partners and allies to bring in their data and share patterns. Eventually, the patterns and anomalies procured in this center would be merged with U.S. exquisite intelligence, but more routinely, this publicly available or procured unclassified data would be used to provide warning at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels across government agencies, to partners, and when appropriate, to the American people. This data would feed the U.S. IC and military watch centers across the world as a first notice of concerning anomalies.

In order to speed up technology procurement and ensure that leading-edge technology is being used by the IC, we need an IC technology center or hub. Much like the parts and pieces of IARPA, DARPA, and IN-Q-TEL that compete, this unit should bring in all the technology experiments and investments so that the successes can be shared across the IC more quickly. This would allow government and industry to focus on the IC’s technology priorities, make pricing of new technologies more competitive, and cut down on boutique answers to requirements that cannot be scaled IC wide. It would also speed up technology acquisition by bringing in some of the authorities for quick procurement that the above agencies have. This Center would support both Defense and civilian intelligence organizations and be manned by personnel from across the entire IC.

Sign up for the Cyber Initiatives Group Sunday newsletter, delivering expert-level insights on the cyber and tech stories of the day – directly to your inbox. Sign up for the CIG newsletter today.

DNI for All

Turn the DNI into the organization that it was made to be—the leader focused on oversight, guidance, and integration of the entire IC. This does not need to happen with a lot of bureaucracy. The right leaders and experts can do this work.

The DNI has never been given the powers that it needs to fulfill its mandate. To do this, the DNI must have say over the entire National Intelligence Program budgeting. Currently, the DNI’s oversight is watered down by having little budget decision making authority. If they do not like the direction that the DNI is providing, the other intelligence agency Directors go directly to Congress who will earmark specific funds and the DNI, who answers directly to the President, is thwarted. This needs to change.

Defense intelligence makes up the largest part of the intelligence community with each service having its own intelligence unit, each COCOM having its own, and the collection support agencies technically being under the Secretary of Defense. To oversee this enterprise, the Office of the Secretary of Defense created the Undersecretary for Intelligence and Security (OUSDI&S) in 2003. This office continues to struggle to find its footing in the IC. As stated previously, it has some power that the DNI does not in that it has sway over the Military Intelligence Program (MIP) budget. However, the CSA Directors have their own avenues of communication to the Secretary of Defense, the DNI, and Congress. To fix this issue, the I&S Under Secretary simultaneously should act as the DNI Deputy. The Director for Military Affairs at the DNI should be the Department’s and I&S’ in-house consultant on a day-to-day basis and act as conduit between DNI and OUSDI&S. This arrangement would streamline the multiple meetings that CSA Directors are invited to attend separately with I&S and DNI—they could be held at the same time. It would also make it clear that OUSD I&S brings the rest of the defense intelligence agencies to the table and sets joint IC priorities.

A key issue in the IC is that there is no comprehensive strategy for countering our adversaries. While the NSC sometimes tries to play the role of the strategy developer, most NSC Directors do not thoroughly understand the capabilities of each of the intelligence agencies and IC agencies are not compelled to follow the direction of such strategies, especially when the NSC provides competing priorities. Either the IC is left out or there are multiple IC entities who compete with each other to try to develop the strategy. It makes most sense to have the DNI embrace its integration role and represent the entire IC to the NSC to develop the IC portion of strategic competition strategies. The DNI, with its National Intelligence Managers, would lead IC strategic competition teams so that these teams could be prioritized by resources and personnel.

By retasking and focusing the DNI workforce, the above work can be accomplished without growing the workforce and with more streamlined personnel numbers. The IC also needs to entice the best and brightest to work at the DNI. The IC needs those individuals who truly are experts both in their functional area and as intelligence professionals. Agency directors must recognize the importance of interagency work and reward that work. Over time, the real IC experts and leaders no longer go to DNI on rotation because they have seen their home agencies shut them out upon return.

All Source Agencies Should Double Down on Core Competencies

CIA and DIA have spread into each other’s lanes so that there is now a duplication of analysis and, in some cases, collection. CIA should focus on nonmilitary issues such as political stability and economics, and DIA should focus its workforce on military and military technology issues. Of course, there will be a gray area but that should be worked out between the Directors of the two agencies. Some would say that we should have only one all-source analytical organization. The issue with that is that the needs of the Department of Defense for niche military analysis would overwhelm the economic, medical, and political stability issues that CIA focuses on. Both need to be done and both have their customers.

During my time as a young analyst at CIA, my focus was on political stability and when I had to brief or write on a specific military issue that required anything more than basic knowledge, I would call my DIA counterpart to provide his/her expertise. That individual would be able to discuss all aspects of a weapon system, military personalities, and readiness, etc. When DIA analysts were asked to discuss stability issues, they would bring me with them and together we could paint a holistic story.

Single Source Agencies

The National Geospatial Agency and the National Security Agency are both U.S. treasures. We need to keep them focused on their core competencies by feeding them commercially available data—do not make them go out and develop analytics, buy data sets, etc. We also need to keep them focused on their genre. They should not be doing all source analytics.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

Emphasizing Irregular and Cognitive Warfare

Irregular warfare must be a focus of U.S. national security policy going forward. This concept needs to include cognitive warfare as a regular tool for national security leaders. Instead of the steel-eyed focus on dominating an opponent’s military, with the covert and clandestine arts as a small subset of our national security, we must focus on positively influencing governments and populations as much as we focus on overcoming an adversary’s weapon system. We must excel at denial and deception and information operations that give our adversaries pause during peacetime and make them think hard about any offensive engagement with the U.S.

We also must use all the gray zone tactics to be prepared in case the worst happens and we are in a kinetic fight. This gets accomplished through the use of irregular warfare and well thought out strategic campaigns. This requires a "whole-of-government" approach. No single government entity can win an irregular war on its own. With a DNI that is truly leading the IC and partnering with the Department of Defense, the DNI’s, National Intelligence Managers would work with COCOMs to help develop these irregular warfare or competition strategies and bring in intelligence units from all the agencies to include state, treasury, energy, military services, etc.

To further support a whole of government effort in this area, we need to develop an OSS-like agency that has oversight of CIA HUMINT and covert capabilities with DoD HUMINT and clandestine capabilities. This small but mighty organization would focus on deconfliction and training. It would respond to gaps and requirements using the best athletes from the appropriate agency or department. The current office of Community HUMINT could be the nucleus for this new entity but it must move from CIA to DNI so that DNI can play its leadership/integrator role.

Defense Intelligence

DIA began as an all-source agency to support the warfighter. It has developed into a large bureaucracy. DIA headquarters needs to be refocused and slimmed down to a staff that provides support to the Pentagon (OSD and Joint Staff) and to the COCOMs. Headquarters should only provide those supporting functions such as training, resources, personnel, infrastructure, and data. They should also deconflict and integrate the work of the individuals in the field and at the COCOMs. COCOMs, OSD, and Joint Staff should be plussed up with analysts and collectors currently at DIA headquarters. They would work on the issues that the operators and military decisionmakers need to be worked on.

Conclusion

This new IC would have a clear leader and be refocused on technology, publicly available information, and developing strategies for gray zone competition. The other proposed changes clean up ongoing issues that add to some dysfunction and distraction in the IC. This focus on technology and publicly available information leaves the most sensitive activities that any global power must perform to a smaller, more focused group of individuals who would be experts in the field of covert and clandestine activities. The plan also stops some of the redundancies across the three important areas of analysis, technology, and sensitive activities. It clarifies leadership roles and allows enough overlap to encourage some internal IC competition while providing for better oversight.

Who’s Reading this? More than 500K of the most influential national security experts in the world. Need full access to what the Experts are reading?

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.

OPINION — You’ve probably seen that iconic photo of Senator Frank Church (D-ID) holding up a CIA poison dart gun, right? Or perhaps the one of Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) aiming it at the sky? They came from the Church Committee’s live hearings on intelligence activities some fifty years ago, in September 1975. We know that the Senate’s Church Committee investigated a wide range of intelligence issues and organizations, including CIA covert operations. And those hearings ushered in a new, more public phase of intelligence politics.

What you may not know is that a few short months later Senate Members and staff quietly reached out to the CIA and the White House for comments on a draft bill to create a new intelligence oversight committee. In mid-December 1975, Senator Charles Percy’s office asked CIA Director Colby to set up a series of “off the record” meetings to discuss congressional intelligence oversight “philosophically as well as practically” because the Senate planned to take up the issue. Similarly, Senators Strom Thurmon (R-SC) and John Stennis (D-MI) sought CIA input for talking points ahead of early January meetings on intelligence oversight. With significant changes and over deep Senate divisions, the draft bill worked its way from the Church Committee to the Senate Government Oversight Committee and through the Rules Committee to eventually become Senate Resolution 400 (S. Res. 400), establishing the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).

In reaching out, the Senate set a critical precedent of seeking CIA “technical assistance” on intelligence-related legislation. The Senate’s request allowed the CIA to advise Senate Members and staff on intelligence issues, highlight potential pitfalls, and offer options for effective oversight. By asking for CIA input, Senators drew the Agency into the political process that helped shape the emerging formal intelligence committee system as the informal system of CIA oversight subcommittees began to fade. The move set a model for sustaining strong, productive ties with the CIA, even at times of heightened tension over intelligence issues.

You’d probably agree that today it's quite common for Congress to consult the White House on legislation. But what is stunning in this case is that Members sought comments “in confidence” on the Church Committee’s draft bill at a time when engaging on intelligence issues was very sensitive. It was also a sharp turn from just two years earlier when Congress barely consulted the White House or the CIA in passing the Hughes-Ryan Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, which significantly restricted the Executive Branch’s authority to use covert action and expanded the number of committees overseeing CIA intelligence and operations.

It was much different with S. Res. 400. Working with and through the White House, Senate and CIA staff discussed key points of successive drafts from January to February 1976. CIA officials expressed concern about the proposed committee’s jurisdiction because it combined “foreign and domestic intelligence activities,” which they saw as different subjects with “different legal, practical and political considerations.” They also raised issues with a requirement for annual authorizations for intelligence activities, fearing it might publicly expose CIA’s budget. Similarly, Agency officials pointed out problems with the proposed committee’s declassification authorities, limited terms of service for Members, process for committee staff secrecy agreements, requirement to keep the committee “fully and currently” informed on “all intelligence activities,” and the addition of another committee overseeing the CIA.

Subscriber+Members have exclusive access to the Open Source Collection Daily Brief, keeping you up to date on global events impacting national security. It pays to be a Subscriber+Member.

Senate and Agency staff worked out some vital modifications to the initial bill text through a series of exchanges. For example, rather than the CIA Director being responsible for keeping the committee informed of “all” intelligence activities, as originally drafted, they agreed to strike the word “all” in favor of having the DCI keeping the committee “fully and currently informed with respect to intelligence activities, including significant anticipated activities.” CIA officials pointed out to Senate staff that the original language “would commit us to a lie,” as “no DCI would know of all the planned activities in order to meet the requirement.” Senate staff in turn explained that what the committee really wanted was to know about the “sensitive, hot, unusual” stuff. So, they struck a compromise. The Senate Government Oversight Committee also made modest changes to other key provisions about annual authorizations of activities, reporting requirements, staff secrecy agreements, and the committee’s declassification authority—with one huge change.

Given significant CIA and White House push back on the proposed intelligence committee’s authority to declassify information, the Senate Government Oversight Committee opted for a Senate resolution rather than a law to create SSCI. Since a resolution would not have the force of law, the committee could assert its authority to declassify information without triggering an immediate constitutional battle over Executive and Legislative Branch prerogatives. Following nine days of hearings, including testimony from DCI Colby and other administration officials, the committee unanimously reported out S. Res. 400 on 24 February 1976, moving the draft resolution to the Senate’s Rules and Judiciary Committees.

The resolution included provisions for the proposed intelligence committee to have primary legislative and annual authorization jurisdiction over the IC, which meant no funds could be appropriated without authorization for activities. Judiciary Committee members saw this as stripping away their jurisdiction over Department of Justice intelligence activities. The measure also included intelligence reporting requirements to the committee and, most importantly, a multi-step process for declassifying information, subject to full Senate concurrence, with or without presidential approval. These issues made the resolution highly contentious. As such, the Rules Committee did not immediately act on it.

Reflective of the Senate, the Rules Committee was deeply divided over the proposed intelligence committee’s authorities. These divisions were on policy not partisan politics. In particular, the differences were over the new committee’s legislative primacy over the IC, the need for annual authorizations, and the authority to declassify intelligence.

So, the resolution languished from March through mid-May as Rules Committee Members deliberated on the intelligence politics at stake. To help shape the debate, the Rules Committee held four days of hearings and invited several Senators to give testimony on the resolution. Significantly they also invited DCI Bush, who had replaced Colby on 30 January and was the only administration official asked to give testimony. In doing so the Rules Committee provided the CIA another opportunity to advise Members on the intelligence issues at stake, shape the emerging oversight committee, and weigh in on the intelligence politics at play.

Naturally in his testimony Director Bush welcomed effective congressional oversight. And he expressed his desire for Congress to be an intelligence consumer. But he also underscored the concerns the Agency had been raising for months.

These included the danger to operations from the growing number of committees overseeing intelligence activities, congressional assertion of the authority to declassify intelligence over the possible objections of the president, potential for annual authorizations of intelligence activities to publicly expose the Agency’s budget, and the move to combine domestic and foreign intelligence oversight under one committee. Commenting on the problem with annual authorizations for intelligence activities, DCI Bush offered a potential path forward. He stated that he was open to briefing the proposed new committee on CIA’s budget and that the committee could then “file a classified letter containing its CIA budget recommendations with the Appropriations Committee.” This would protect the Agency’s budget and preserve the Appropriation Committee’s jurisdiction as well as provide the new intelligence committee input for authorizing intelligence activities and policies.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

The Rules Committee held votes on several amendments touching on the most sensitive issues and ultimately reported out the measure to the full Senate by a narrow 5-4 margin on 10 May 1976. But behind the scenes Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MO) and other Senators swooped in to begin working on a compromise resolution because they knew the measure might not pass the full Senate given the contentious issues, especially on the proposed committee’s jurisdiction. Based on their work, Rules Committee Chairman Howard Cannon provided the “Cannon Compromise,” which ultimately threaded the needle to create SSCI.

The “Cannon Compromise” gave the new committee exclusive legislative and authorization jurisdiction over the CIA. But critically it shared sequential jurisdiction over other national intelligence legislation, meaning other committees would not lose their intelligence oversight role. The new committee would have the right to be “fully and currently” informed of intelligence activities, specifically on significant anticipated activities. It also laid out a detailed, multi-step process for the committee to disclose intelligence over the objection of the president, subject to concurrence by the full Senate.

To further draw out the intent of key provisions and gain support, some Senators from the Government Operations Committee held colloquies, which are somewhat scripted dialogues during floor debate used to clarify issues and document legislative intent in the congressional record. For example, Senators Ribcoff and Nunn held a colloquy about how annual authorizations would not require publication of the CIA's budget. Equally important, several Senators publicly and privately pledged to introduce legislation that would centralize intelligence oversight and roll back the number of committees looking into intelligence activities, aiming to address CIA’s point about the dangers of sprawling intelligence oversight. In the end, the Senate passed S. Res. 400 on 19 May 1976 by a vote of 72-22.

In the process, Senate Members saw the importance of seeking CIA’s “technical assistance” because they understood how complex intelligence had become and wanted insight on how to make intelligence oversight more effective. By drawing on CIA input, Congress set a foundation for enduring, productive congressional intelligence working ties—even during tense times. And while the practice of soliciting CIA’s technical assistance on legislative matters may be little known, it enables informed intelligence legislation and strengthens the ties needed not only for effective intelligence oversight but also for intelligence activities.

The Senate created the SSCI because Americans demanded better oversight of our spy agencies. Senators realized intelligence work had grown incredibly complex but vital for national security. So they asked the CIA for “technical assistance” to gain insight. It might sound odd—asking the CIA to help oversee the CIA. But Senators wanted to understand how to craft effective intelligence oversight to guide intelligence activities and shape intelligence policies. By working with CIA experts, they built a relationship that has lasted for decades, even during rocky periods. This behind-the-scenes cooperation helps Congress create better legislation and maintains the working relationship needed for effective oversight. It’s not without friction because neither gets everything they want. But it is a practical approach: effective intelligence policies and oversight hinge on knowing the business.

All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the US Government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US Government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief

In the world of cannabis technology, few brands carry the legacy and trust of Storz & Bickel. For over two decades, their iconic Volcano vaporizer has set the standard for quality and performance, earning a reputation as the gold standard for both cannabis medical patients and connoisseurs alike. While the brand’s legacy is built on its classic devices, Storz & Bickel continues to innovate. Today, the brand is launching the new VEAZY, a true game-changer for the personal dry herb vape market.

The new Storz & Bickel VEAZY Vaporizer delivers consistent, flavorful vapor in just 40 seconds using the company’s patented hybrid heating technology. It’s also the brand’s smallest and most affordable device, priced at just $249 and weighing 0.3 lbs. Users can fine-tune settings and easily personalize sessions from their phone or laptop via Bluetooth to the S&B web app.  Plus, the quick USB-C charging system means you can easily recharge the device when you’re on the move. The VEAZY is the perfect blend of style and substance: It fits nicely in the palm of your hand but still packs a punch with S&B’s patented mini hybrid heater blending conduction and convection. 

Cannabis Now Founder Eugenio Garcia sat down with Jürgen Bickel, co-founder and managing director of Storz & Bickel, to discuss the brand’s 25-year journey from a small German workshop to a global industry leader. In this conversation, Jürgen shares the company’s foundational principles, his new role as a public-facing advocate for the brand, and an exciting first look at the VEAZY, the company’s latest device set to redefine accessibility in the space.

Eugenio Garcia: Jürgen, welcome. Thank you for being here with me. Storz & Bickel is one of the few brands with a true legacy. In my opinion, cannabis is still a new industry, but we’ve been at it for over a decade now in its modern sense. However, your brand has a rich history, and I’d love to learn a little more about the company’s beginnings and how it got started.

Jürgen Bickel: Of course. This was 25 years ago, or even a little bit before. The starting point was my partner, or ex-partner, Markus Storz. He started to develop the Volcano. I met him from time to time during this process, and I also tested a few things with him. But at that time, I was still living in South America and was not too close to it. In November 2000, he brought out the first series of the Volcano. I was one of his first clients. I bought a Volcano for myself. I quit smoking tobacco at that time, and I brought it with me to Peru.

A year later, I came back to Germany. My time in South America was over, and Markus needed help, so I helped him out because I knew the device. We attended trade shows together, and then we decided to co-found Storz & Bickel. We were just the two of us then, and then the journey started. 25 years later, we have about 150 employees here and have had a great time and a great experience.

EG: Twenty-five years ago, how did you develop the technology for the Volcano? How has it transitioned over 25 years, given that you must have over 20 or 30 products now?

JB: It started with a heat gun. It became clear at the time that you don’t have to burn the flower to consume it. At that time, it wasn’t immediately apparent to everyone that THCA needed to be decarboxylated; all we knew was that it worked. We found out that you need a minimum of 180 degrees Celsius to release the THC, and you need less than 230 degrees Celsius because above that, it also burns. This is your window and to stay in that window, you must have exact temperature control. This is how it started.

EG: The balloon is such a signature part of the Volcano experience. What was the rationale behind that design choice, and what benefits does it offer the user that other methods don’t?

JB: To this day, people still ask, “What is it, a balloon or a bag?” But it’s just a way to hold the vapor you have already produced so you only need to inhale. You can almost not do anything wrong once you have the bag in your hand. It’s very easy, and it’s also a resistance-free inhalation. All this made it very special from the very beginning.

EG: There’s a huge medical benefit to these devices. How do you think about it from a medical point of view, as far as the technology and your presentation of the products?

JB: We’re located in Tuttlingen, Germany, which calls itself the world center of medical devices.. So, from the very beginning, it was clear that we wanted to have a medical device like everybody else in this town. Another point for us from the very beginning was that somebody who is slightly disabled needs to be able to use it. It was also important that a patient could use it and that you could replicate the dosage. One balloon always has the same amount. You have local mobility; you don’t have to touch electricity or heat or glass. You can bring it to a patient in a bed. All of this was thought into the design from the very beginning, and it worked very well.

It’s not only the medical device status we like. We also certify our household devices that are not medical devices. We certify them with a UL norm. The UL 8139 is the vaporizing norm. We send 100 devices to a lab where somebody else tests them, doing drop tests, water tests, electric tests, and venting tests. We do this to get a third-party approval for our device. This is our way to ensure quality and demonstrate the diligence we bring into the development process.

EG: Speaking of the development process, how does the process of creating new devices or enhancing technology work for you?

JB: We get a lot of customer feedback, and we take all feedback seriously to see if there is something that everybody doesn’t like or what everybody wants to have. We review it, but the baseline remains an internal process.

For the Venty, for example, we said, “Okay, the MIGHTY+ is nice, but we would like something a little bit faster with more airflow.” So, this was clearly an internal idea. In the cannabis industry, if something isn’t widely available and a lot of people don’t know about vaporizers, it’s difficult to get good feedback. You have some experts who know a lot of devices, but this is only a few people, and they are already experts. This isn’t somebody on the street you can ask. The feedback you get is always that people want it to be cheap and small, which makes it a little bit difficult.

We develop a lot of these ideas in-house; Markus and I both use cannabis and we’re the first ones who test it. We stand behind it, and if I don’t like it or if I think it doesn’t work, then we don’t do it. This is our internal review process. But of course, the whole community brings in ideas, and all this together brings us to a new device.

EG: You mentioned just now that everyone wants it cheaper and smaller. A company that comes to mind when you say that is Apple. They revolutionized technology across

the world. I don’t know if you’ve heard this before, but a lot of people compare Storz & Bickel to Apple. They say Storz & Bickel is the Apple of the cannabis space.

JB: I’ve heard that. It’s nice to hear.

EG: With Apple for many years, after Steve Jobs passed, there wasn’t a lot of personality behind the brand. For Storz & Bickel, for many years, everyone knew the Volcano and the product, but nobody really knew who was behind it. There was no public face of the brand. Maybe it’s just me, but in the last year or two, we’ve seen you, Jürgen Bickel, really out there as an entrepreneur and a leader in the space, as a spokesperson not only for your brand but for the industry as a whole. You’re very active on social media. I’ve seen you speaking on panels and doing a lot more interviews. Is that a perception, or have you truly taken your message and the brand to the streets in the last few years?

JB: That’s absolutely true. Of course, in the past, the legal situation in the States and in Europe was much more difficult, and you may not have wanted to go out and present yourself as a big cannabis entrepreneur. This has changed in the last few years. I can talk more openly than the company can. I can use the word “cannabis.” I can show the consumption. I also want to show people what it is like. I don’t want to give a wrong image. Everything that is happening on social media is authentic. I’m a user at the end of the day, and I’m testing the device. I’ve tested tons of devices, and I want to transmit this message. I am who I am, and this is the company behind it. This is to build trust with people and say, “You can spend this amount of money. I assure you this is something good. This is not something you will regret at any point.”

EG: The economy around the industry has been challenging. What I’ve seen is that a lot of companies, specifically from Europe, were looking at the US for expansion. Now that Germany has legalized, a good number have reversed their focus back to Germany or Europe. Germany has a population of nine million, so it’s a massive move for the economy and for potential revenue. How has Germany impacted your focus? We know that Mary Jane Berlin had 44,000 to 45,000 attendees.

JB: From the baseline, we understand ourselves as a global brand. Every year, we ship to more than 100 countries. It shows that cannabis is consumed everywhere in the world, whatever the legal situation is. Even where penalties exist, people are still consuming—not in the same way or with the same openness—but worldwide, people have been using cannabis for thousands of years. This is part of our brand’s international approach. I like this about cannabis, seeing that people are using it everywhere in the world.

Of course, then you have your main markets where you have your main sales and main revenue. The US market is the biggest market for us. But Europe also became more important. It was always a good market, but with legalization in Germany, we doubled our revenue in Germany. It’s also personally much nicer to live in a legal environment where you can consume and have three plants at home, which is allowed. So, as a company, Germany is great, and it’s our home market and our home language, so we have a lot of focus here.

We also have a subsidiary in Oakland; an office with 15 people and more than 20 salespeople employed as Storz & Bickel America, Inc. I personally founded that company in 2005 in Oakland. So, on the revenue side, we look for our main markets, but our general approach is to be worldwide, and I’m proud to ship every year to more than 100 countries.

EG: I was very happy to see the Oakland expansion. I lived in Berkeley, California, for 10 years. I have a very fond love for Oaksterdam. It was a cradle of innovation, as they say, so close to Silicon Valley. Speaking of innovation, tell me about the new VEAZY vaporizer.

JB: The Venty was our last innovation, almost two years ago. It was a game-changer because it had high airflow. It’s a very successful device, but it is a little bit pricey and bulky. It has the performance for people who are using cannabis several times a day. We thought, like with the Mighty and Crafty, the Venty needs a little brother or sister. We came up with the “VEAZY.”

The VEAZY has the same feeling chamber inside, so it works with our capsules, but it’s much smaller and handier. It has a slightly higher heat-up time of 40 seconds, and the airflow is a little more restricted, but it’s a nice and small device. Our goal with this device was to bring our experience to a broader audience and make it more affordable. This will retail at $249 USD. It has great performance and is a very nice device.

EG: And it comes in a range of fun colors, right?

JB: Yes! All our devices are normally black, so we thought, “Let’s use a few colors if we’re going in a more lifestyle direction.” In addition to our alluring black, it will come in four colors: rainbow, a dynamic blue, inspiring orange, and a charming pink.

EG:  I love them so much. Being able to personalize a purchase is really important to people. In your home, you can use it as a presentation. It’s not just a device you pull out of a drawer. It’s something you can have on a bar cart or a conversation piece in the home, which is very exciting.

JB: It has the orange button, the different colors, and it works well and goes in your pocket. It’s a very good offer to the market. It’s also easy to use with a one-button design: You press it once, and it turns on. You see the orange light, and it heats up.

EG: It looks beautiful. It gives me an essence of a microphone for a rock star. You are the rock star of your own life with one of these. I can’t wait to try one. Congratulations.

As one of the leading brands and entrepreneurs in the space, what is your hope for the next five to 10 years? Do you think that we are on the cusp of a global or at least US legalization? What do you predict in the near and medium future?

JB: On the legal side, I think that it will go in the right direction. I don’t see things going back, even in the US. But even the current situation is acceptable. You can run a business in this space and do certain things. You see this globally. Australia, for example, is a good market. You also see advancements in South Africa and even in Brazil. The same thing happens: It goes through medical and then recreational. It gets acceptance. Our generation is the first one that is more open to it. The younger generation is more open to it, questions alcohol, and has more openness towards cannabis. So, I see this as a positive, and I think this trend will remain.

EG: Absolutely. In order to have the future that we are hoping for, I believe that the normalization of cannabis and the products and brands behind them is very important. What I’ve also noticed in the last year or two with Storz & Bickel is you have done specific things with your brand, connecting them with mainstream, normalizing opportunities. What is the next event that you guys have on your calendar, either in Europe or in the US, that is a larger opportunity for you?

JB: The next show is the cannabis show in Prague, in the Czech Republic. We will have a launch party in New York the weekend after. We are thinking about something in San Diego as well. Then, of course, MJ BizCon and Hall of Flowers in Santa Rosa are coming up. Those are the bigger events. In Europe, Mary Jane was great.

EG: Awesome. JB, it has been a pleasure to connect with you. I’ve been watching your progress over the years. I graduated high school in 2000, and the Volcano quickly came into my world when I was in college. It’s been a true pleasure to see someone like you grow over the years and now to talk to you personally. Thank you so much.

The post Storz & Bickel Celebrates 25 Years With Launch of New VEAZY Vape appeared first on Cannabis Now.

This No Fuss No Knead Focaccia Recipe with walnuts, garlic and rosemary is very very forgiving and very delicious too. I love the moistness it offers, the flour to water ratio baking up a beautiful crumb.

The post No Fuss No Knead Focaccia Recipe with walnuts, garlic and rosemary… simple and delicious appeared first on Passionate About Baking.

In an anonymous statement, a Tor administrator explains how the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD attempted to recruit him. His story gives a detailed insight into the expanding power of the security state, whose influence now reaches into the business world, prestigious universities, and (international) hacker communities.

Marco*, the provider of the statement, is a 30-year-old Dutchman with a Master of Science degree from the Delft University of Technology. He is an expert concerning the Tor network who – for research purposes – runs some Tor exit nodes. Marco states:

“Suddenly, I was approached by a man and woman at a gym I frequented at that time. They identified themselves with a badge from the Ministry of Interior and explained they were working for the AIVD. I felt somewhat overwhelmed, and I was afraid I had got myself into trouble.”

That is a common tactic used by intelligence agencies. They do not announce their visit in advance so that they can overwhelm their targets. It also gives them an edge before the recruitment process has started.

“First, they asked all sorts of questions related to my education. They had read my thesis regarding IT security and complimented me extensively.”

‘Ego boosting’ is yet another tactic to make the target feel important and comfortable. It also makes you somewhat forget that you are talking to an intelligence officer.

“At one point, they offered me all types of jobs at the AIVD. I could work from their office, but I could also do fieldwork as an informant or infiltrator. They explained they were creating a special team called the Joint Sigint Cyber Unit (JSCU).”

The JSCU is a special department that encompasses employees from the AIVD, as well as the military intelligence agency MIVD. In the past few years, the department has grown significantly to 700 employees, including fifty hackers. Their task is to intercept radio and satellite communications and to engage in cyberwarfare. The JSCU is known to share intelligence with foreign agencies, such as the CIA and the NSA.

“Their approach clarified to me that the intelligence agencies are monitoring IT students in the final stages of their education. They are also looking for individuals who are slightly older – but still connected with younger generations – for management positions.”

At that point, the intelligence officers become more open about the intended targets of the unit:

“Subsequently, they asked me if I was interested in traveling for several years. I could also work for a German technological company. The idea was to travel to Germany and visit Hackspaces of the Chaos Computer Club. I had to report on these events, and the agency would cover all costs.”

The Chaos Computer Club (CCC) was founded in West-Germany in 1981. It is the largest European hacker organization, with approximately 7700 members. The CCC is an independent association that, among other things, shows a strong commitment to (online) privacy, cryptography, and anonymity. Given the expertise and activities of some members, the CCC acts as a magnet for intelligence agencies.

“They kept offering me proposals. They promised me ‘unparalleled opportunities’ if I decided to work for the AIVD. They told me I could attend hacker parties in Spain, Italy, and Austria, and consider those events as paid holidays.”

Then, more targets were mentioned:

“The male intelligence officer explained the AIVD was interested in the developers of Tor and Tails. What he meant was that they need informants and infiltrators, but he said this in a lengthy way. According to the officer, this was part of an international operation.”

Aside from paid expenses and travel costs, Marco was offered a substantial starting salary.

“I could determine my salary, as long as it was no more than 5000 euros per month.”

Despite these generous offers, Marco was able to see through the grooming efforts. He refused, but initially, the officers kept attempting to convince him. When Marco persisted, the tone of the conversation changed. Now, the time for compliments was over.

“We know you are building Tor exit nodes. If you do that while working for us, you can make a living out of it. If you do not work for the intelligence agency and something illegal occurs, we cannot prevent the police from raiding your house and confiscating your equipment. Finally, the officers explained to Marco that talking about the meeting was a criminal offense. After giving me their number, they left.”

Marco’s story demonstrates the priorities and dedication of intelligence agencies. And already they have achieved success. In 2017, the Dutch authorities announced they had taken over, dismantled, and deleted Hansa Market, at that point, one of the largest markets on the dark web.

If intelligence agencies succeed in infiltrating service providers such as Tor and Tails, this will be a severe blow to online privacy and anonymity.

*Marco is a fictitious name.

The post How intelligence agencies recruit Tor administrators appeared first on Rana News.