Lawfare Archive: The National Intelligence Strategy with Michael Collins of the National Intelligence Council

Running isn't enough anymore. With PWC's managed services, your operations don't just run, they evolve continuously,

“powered by AI embedded directly into your workflows. So instead of maintaining yesterday's model,”

you're building tomorrow's advantage. PWC's managed services, we run your operations with tech and talent, so you can run faster, scale smarter, lead stronger. In addition, you're building your new house on the Dragon.

Drachen camp from Gaggen Drachen, Terrarians, Gangtigerians, Intrigues, Farad and Epische Schlachten.

All that awaited you in the new level.

“Also, streamed the new level of the Dragon and all the series from Game of Thrones, Nur, on HBO Max.”

I'm Sarah Willrich, intern at Law Fair, with an episode from the Law Fair archive for July 5th, 2026. This past week, acting director of National Intelligence Bill Pol began firing personnel at the office of the director of National Intelligence or OD&I.

So far, six political appointees have been fired, and 45 people on joint duty assignment were sent back to their home agencies from the OD&I.

More fireings are expected in the coming weeks. For today's archives, I chose an episode from September 1st, 2023, in which Michael Collins, then acting head of the National Intelligence Council, the body responsible for long-term analysis and strategy within the OD&I. Discuss that year's National Intelligence strategy, the challenges facing US National Security, and more broadly, the role intelligence and the intelligence community can play in addressing those threats in the years to come.

I'm David Chris, and this is the Law Fair podcast, September 1st, 2023. The National Intelligence Strategy is out, and with me to discuss it is Michael Collins, the acting head of the National Intelligence Council. We discuss many aspects of US National Security, Defense, Cyber, and Intelligence Strategy, including the increasing geopolitical significance of non-state entities, and even the meaning of the word intelligence itself. We also cover Mike's long and illustrious career inside the US intelligence community and his thoughts about the future of US intelligence.

It's the Law Fair podcast, September 1st, the National Intelligence Strategy, with Mike Collins of the National Intelligence Council. We're going to talk about the new National Intelligence Strategy that was released to the public recently, but before we get to that, let's talk about you.

“Can you tell our listeners a little bit about your career, including your current role as the acting head of the Nick, and maybe a little bit about what the Nick, the National Intelligence Council really is?”

Well, thank you, David, of course, and thank you so much for this opportunity to exchange some thoughts with you on some of our priorities, and of course, they relate to the National Intelligence Strategy. So, I'm a career analyst. I joined the agency a long time ago at CIA originally as an analyst of mostly East Asian Affairs, served in various capacities as a manager as an analyst in different AORs. It was a Chief of Staff on the seventh floor for the Deputy Director for our East Asian Pacific Mission Center.

I was formally prior to this job, the Chief Strategy Officer for the CIA, where I learned a lot about and participated in some fantastic conversations about all of our respective government strategies, including the role of the intelligence community. Now I moved over to the National Intelligence Council in a sense getting me back to the analytic basics that I grew up doing, if you will. The National Intelligence Council within OD and I, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is fundamentally responsible for pulling together the coordinated view of the entirety of the US intelligence community on the issues around the world that our policymakers have to wrestle with.

So, both in the short term capacity, increasingly in recent years, doing a lot of support representing the entirety of the intelligence community, for hard policy making decisions and meetings that require the view of the I see. But even more so, we're fundamentally responsible for the longer term, estimate of work of the intelligence community.

Our government wrestle with and how they matter most currently for what policymakers can do today to affect that trajectory, but as well, of course, 10, 15, 20 years out, where they may land in the future. If you will that nexus between the policy-making community and the intelligence community, we don't do policy, provide objective analysis to support the policy. The National Intelligence Officers, that themselves populate the National Intelligence Council, are each senior experts in the regional issues of the functional issues they govern.

They are also charged with representing the formal analytic position of the U.S. I see, of course, across the U.S. government, but as well with foreign and domestic partners that we engage with.

Okay, so I've got to unpack a lot of that for our listeners. There's a lot of threads that may be worth pulling. So first of all, you've got it yourself as a CIA guy. And so, let me ask you, and you're an old, I mean, East Asia hand, I'm not going to try to, you know, date you or anything, but let me just ask this, when you started back in the day, did you think East Asia, China in particular would be the thing, I mean, were you that smart that you were looking ahead from, you know,

“when you joined the agency in 1943, or what, what was the thinking that led you to that?”

Well, it was a combination of issues. I actually went to my undergraduate work was in political science, international affairs, studying then the Cold War, and the end of the Cold War more specifically. I believe, Union, Eastern European studies, but after the end of the Cold War, as much of a junkie as I was for international affairs and geopolitics in particular, I saw any stage where I thought the forces of, if you will, the west and what we stand for, and those in other regimes stand for something else, I saw where geopolitics would probably take shape next, if you will.

So, I also happened to have studied and undergraduate Japanese, not for any strategic reason, if you will, but because I had to meet some sort of requirements instead of taking some other classes.

“And therefore, I found myself into the East Asia political military, if you will, arena. I also at that time when I started at the agency, I was also pursuing my graduate work at George Washington University.”

Or at the same time. Well, at the same time, and I was doing a fellowship, and then my graduate work, where I had started working in the state department for then deputy secretary Stroke Talbot on political military affairs, and happened to be in the East Asia arena where I met some people, and they sort of encouraged me to look toward the agency.

So, you were at the state department, not just pretend at the state department, you were actually working at the state department.

I was going to grad school at the same time. I was at doing my early graduate work, and doing a policy fellowship, then within the state department, where I got in touch with and met some smart people.

“Stroke Talbot, I mean, you know, deadly gambits and later a big Think Tank guy, and that's pretty high for living company, and that sounds like a pretty intense early experience.”

And then it sounded like from your review of, you know, your stuff, would you deliver very modestly, but for people who know each one of those things is like a massive challenge and achievement to survive. You've actually had to be the boss of people in run operations, I don't mean DO, but like, you know, mission centers and chief of staff roles. But now you said, yeah, you're back to your analytic roots. Do you like it better? You're happy to be, you know, doing the analysis work, again, as well as leading a team, but still I hope you get to do some analytic work.

I do a what look what I like most about this work now during this period ties to the, you know, the national security strategy and the national intelligence strategy derivative of. In particular, the focus on intelligence itself as a subject of analysis and understanding, and so as an analyst and as a manager of integrated efforts in the intelligence community. I learned and develop a stronger appreciation for. This pillar of power being stronger when it operates in an integrated manner. Whether you're talking about substantive issues or you're talking about the connection between analysis and operations and support, etc.

And so now I see from my previous experience, including my last experience as the CSO for CIA, an opportunity to step back and help the community think objectively.

Building our expertise, can we say things with more confidence and are we helping to service what the national security strategy itself now asks us to do, which is to prioritize intelligence as a discrete pillar of power.

“Okay, so I'm going to turn to this dread in your sec, but there's a little bit more on the neck before we do that.”

I mean, you're a CIA guy, but your national intelligence officers and I'm not going to ask about details on their bios or their numbers or, you know, how you can reach them in an emergency.

But they're drawn from across the IC, right? They represent a different agencies and their chosen based on whatever. So you've got a kind of a cross-cutting team, which is consistent with your goal of sort of doing meta-all source that combines all the inputs from all of the IC's elements that are relevant to a question. Correct. Correct.

And we have a good variety of experts from across the intelligence community. We strive to ensure that we have that mix increasingly as well, and historically it has, our doors are open for smart individuals in the private sector to knock on our door and say, hey, I'd like to take a stab at taking on one of these assignments as well. If we're truly successful or NIOs, no, I speak to them as responsible for marshalling the best of the insight that exists across the IC or, frankly, in the open arena.

Okay, let's say I'm an international relations professor at, you know, some fancy fancy university.

I've never had a security clearance, but I'm a good person and, you know, haven't done a lot of drugs recently.

Can I just apply to, like, come in and work for you? Would I have, I'd have to pass the poly in the background check and everything? I mean, I could be an intelligence officer. Yes, yeah, that's, I mean, here we, we publicly advertise the openings we have in various departments. We have, there are, of course, procedures and processes that individuals have to go through to get into the intelligence community, but, you know, shame on us if we're not openly trying to draw in the best of the expertise wherever it is.

Obviously, helps when individuals have a national security experience, but diversity is really, really important for us across all aspects. So, so college students should take note that those distribution requirements that force you to take Japanese may be very valuable.

“College professors should note that if you want to make a little extra money on the side, there could be an opportunity working for Michael.”

So, tell us a little bit about your role, the role of the neck, in creating, in devising thinking about the new national intelligence strategy. What do you guys do on this?

You have to begin with the role we play as well for the larger national security strategy. Okay, so the analysis that we produce, and as you've seen manifested in the director's testimony every year, the annual threat itself, that kind of analysis greatly informs, of course, what the, the senior leadership of our nation decide what they have to focus on, what they need to focus on, and of course, informs the strategies that they put in place for achieving their respective goals. Okay, so there's like a lot of strategies, I mean, it's a crowded house of strategies, but the big one is the national security strategy from which the others flow as that fair to say, I mean, that's what I hear you saying, but.

Correct, that is, so the national security strategy sets the direction, of course, of the White House and ask you to community on what it is, they're trying to most achieve. Strategically, what the priority issues are that the wrestling area that we can get into some of those that you well know, the national intelligence strategy is the direction given to the national intelligence community. To prioritize what we need to do to be the best we always can be both on those immediate issues that we have to wrestle with, but even more so what are we investing in focusing on doubling down on to make sure that over time and space looking ahead.

That's positioning the IC for the challenges that we see coming down the pike.

“Okay, so like the national security strategy, which I think for Biden came out in October of 22, which is he did like an interim one, I think at the beginning, if I recall correctly.”

Yes, and then was sort of took a little longer to get the formal one done, and I might be one of the few people maybe who's a civilian who's actually read all of them from at least Reagan forward. Or fascinating reading, by the way, children, if you're out there, I mean, apart from being a non narcotics lead, but no, they really are interesting documents, and you can see the evolution of the world across these documents. But I think you're saying the national intelligence strategy is more than inward looking, I mean, is it an exhortation from of real hands and people like her and you to the workforce to sort of explain how we're going to get done.

It's a collective, it's a result of collective conversations across the leadership of the intelligence community.

“On the issues, the topics that we need to most focus on across all of the intelligence community to ensure, you know, as I say, we're best posture for what are.”

Great requirements are, but yeah, again, even more so investing in those longer term, as the director laid out in the, you know, the opening of the strategy. The connection between the international and the domestic space and the national security strategies that that creates the requirement to ensure that our analysis is as. And that's, and accurate as possible across everything we cover and the need to ensure that we're using our resources objective speaking and putting them to things that will ensure we're growing across the entirety of the I see.

There's a collective input that goes into it, but obviously with respect to the director, right, she.

“She puts in place the directive, you know, you want you see obviously in it a lot of alignment understandably so with the national security strategy, but hopefully you also see in it.”

It's different in that it's it's a charge to us the U.S. I see it's a public facing document. It's not just the I see it's for others like you. You know, for whom we're looking to elicit perspective and collaboration, etc. Okay, yeah, I was pleased that I, I thought it was broadly consistent with the national security strategy and with the national defense strategy and with the national cyber strategy and even with the fabulous I see data strategy and the world.

Right, everything, all of these things, they're written differently, they're organized a little differently, they're structured a little differently, right, some of my more.

But you can definitely get a feel for what the Biden administration and the intelligence community thinks important. So I was glad that like this one was not, you know, one of these things is not like the other and we just have to conclude, I've reals gone rogue. It has a little bit of a process, you said it's a collective conversation is there's some person holding the pen is there is it is it a committee holding the pen what what can you tell us, you know, consistent with your sources and methods being protected about how the thing gets done.

“I mean, ultimately the office of the director of national intelligence has the pen on the actual final product, if you will, in the strategy, but it is the result of, you know, extensive and regular conversations with the rest of the community.”

Including as we all individually in our respective agencies put forward our respective budget requirements the resources we say we need the activities we say we need support for from across the community. Those early conversations where the heads of the agencies get to communicate what it is their priorities are those become nested within. If you will the fabric of this larger strategy that is intended to govern all of it and obviously again with the particular focus on integration across the community we're better when we operate as they say in a new creative manner as only if you will in our respective individual.

Is it is it more of a document that is derived from sort of choices that are being made and have been made or articulated elsewhere or does it does the document itself in the drafting process sometimes serve. A kind of a convening or forcing function to you know resolve disagreements or different points of view and so forth that does it do that second thing or is a combination of both it's a combination of both where obviously the leadership of the I see gets to and should convey their commanders intent.

If you will on the things that we most need to focus on to be as strong as possible but at the same you're listening to and taking into consideration the rest of the individual members to say well we this is an area that we have to focus on and you find it at others universality across that as it pertains to you know say example things we need to do to hire the talent. You mentioned the data strategy efforts being put toward a dance data that we all could also benefit from so things a combination of the two.

Yeah so some of the values just in the process itself of creating a thing and if somebody wants to take a footnote they can do that subject to the officer director national intelligence for me. Well so let's let's talk a little bit about you know the substance of this particular strategy and get into some of the substance I mean if there is six officially stated goals. What you want to tell us a little bit I mean what's what should we take away from this document what's important in it.

Specific actions things that are for the intelligence printed to do to be better be stronger.

“There's clearly a focus on major powers to teach competition obviously in the world obviously we talk a lot about as doesn't have security strategy.”

China in particular has a major power with ambitions and capability to challenge us leadership and strength in the world Russia obviously our most proximate or media. But can't be strategic competition alone it speaks as well to an increasingly eclectic mix of actors non state actors non state entities and more complicated international system and it's buried throughout each of these about how we relate with partner with the better understand those non state. Actors a new phenomenon we will not new entirely check that but a phenomenon for sure increasingly in this system you know as we understand it in the world.

But third as well is just transnational issues in general climate change food insecurity disease all those issues that from a national security stamp but obviously matter to our nation security.

Justice critical to what I refer to this is my term the global comments and the things on which we need collaborative solutions they're not all of these by the way are not silos they're not mutually exclusive they interact with one another. Now then when you get into the six actions the thing I would stress is not only do you see in each of them the three things I just mentioned but in particular you see.

Interconnection a interdependence across each of these if I'm going to be better at one I also have to be better at two three if you will and four so.

So I totally get the alignment with the national security strategy and like we talked about you know all these strategies should be at least broadly consistent and flowing out of the big one.

“I want to talk about non state entities of course and I think there's you know I do think there's a pretty good case to be made that the world is changing in a way such the non state entities are exerting a lot more geopolitical impact.”

Transnational issues you know climate change disease and so forth I mean I'm just. I've heard criticism I don't report to you know agree with that but I just want to sort of pull that out a little bit and talk about it there are or at least I think there are some critics of particular persuasions that might say. You know you're watering down the concept of national security if you're talking about global warming and you're just diluting the core concepts and you know pretty soon you're going to be talking about things like freedom of expression and.

You know teaching history in the schools a certain way and it's just there's no end to this slippery slope so why are you watering down hard core concepts of national security like the missile gap and terrorism.

“So I would say two points on this one I think they more accurately reflect diagnostically.”

A healthy evaluation of our nation security and what most threatens our nation security and all forms and that is our responsibility to ensure we're doing the best we can to protect our nation security in all forms. Obviously that includes both in the immediate end of a longer term looking at those global transnational related issues that if we're not solving somebody will have to solve to ensure we keep our nation secure from those kinds of threats as I say the global comments if you will now break those issues are also interchangeably.

directly related with major power competition sometimes you hear and we can talk about this these domains for national strategic competition in the world these same transnational issues that we're studying and trying to be the best we can trying to help solve. We can play are also the venues to which we are nation are competing with others in the authoritarian world for influence and strategic power in the world. You mentioned norms and standards I definitely agree norms and standards in the world those transnational issues are increasingly central to the strategic competition we face with major authoritarian rivals who.

But to the first point you made as well our responsibility seriously is to our nation's security and those to our partners around the globe.

“I think we have to think more broadly about the word intelligence itself.”

The worldwide Syrian phenomenon is over. The fight against the ice in the throne goes on. At the start there are the third stage house of the dragon by HBO Max. Here you can find the whole world from west across on one board Game of Thrones on the north of the seven kingdoms and of course house of the dragon. Dragon camp against dragon, tygarrions against tygarrions, intrigues, parades and epischishlachten. All that awaited you in the new Stuffle. Also streamed yet the new Stuffle house of the dragon and all the Syrian from Game of Thrones, Nur on HBO Max.

Do your current managed services really help run your operations or are they just running in circles running isn't enough anymore with PWC's managed services your operations don't just run they evolve continuously. How would by AI embedded directly into your workflows. So instead of maintaining yesterday's model you're building tomorrow's advantage PWC's managed services we run your operations with tech and talent so you can run faster scale smarter lead stronger. Ingrid and in deed present here, jobs by the one you don't have any much to do today. Today, you're building your own business. How do you feel about this? I'm not a big fan of you. I'm not a big fan of you. I'm a big fan of you. I'm a big fan of you. That's a job for Sponsor Jobs. With real profits you won't be able to pass. For trawing greed, try to deal with it and find a qualified talent with Sponsor Jobs.

Let's go there in a minute. So just to round out that on the transnational, this is, this is me speaking and you can take it in modified as you like. But this isn't, I hear you saying, some soft-hearted, wokes sort of prelude to the seeding of U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. or some crazy stuff like that.

“This is a objective, hard-nosed, hard core look at what actually matters in the world and the way it affects our national security and a recognition of the environment we're actually in.”

Yes, correct. I mean, clearly, several years ago, people would have been asking the same questions. You were about pandemics and disease in the world. Well, look what it did to our nation's security.

So again, that's, is a great example as to the others you mentioned. I mean, your podcast, law fair, criminal activity in the world, the absence of law fair, is itself. Which is not a few of that. Right. Excellent. And I did not slip like a box to like put that in, but I'm very grateful for it nonetheless. Okay, so yeah, I want to pull a couple of threads subject to your tolerance.

“One is talking about non-state entities and how they are important and differently so then maybe in the past.”

And the other is in the in that what you just said that I was intrigued by, which is what is the meaning of the word intelligence and how has that changed. And maybe those two things are related.

So you're the guest. You got a preference to take one of them on first.

Yeah, well, let me begin by because I teed it up this notion of intelligence and maybe perhaps I'm putting on maybe it's an academic cap, but I don't see much of a difference between academic scholarship of the world and what a intelligence analyst in the US intelligence community does to study the world. In that my job is to best understand the forces that are affecting issues globally. And of course, how they create threads and/or opportunities for US national security. However, I make those conclusions and derive the information that's necessary for it.

We challenge ourselves to use the word more literally intelligence. I'm more smart on the international landscape and the forces that matter than I was yesterday or a year ago, including in a more competitive sense. And more intelligent on the things that matter first strategic influence and power in the world than my rivals are. I tend to emphasize that interpretation. Because then it opens up the gamut of the perspective and the information we depend on. Again, including from experts out there who are studying and are super smart in a whole bunch of issues and we need to be a part of in that conversation. So I think about it both from as a as a strategist and a junkie for geopolitical international affairs. It means what I said it means, including for the sake that it's now a pillar in the national security strategy. So you have to think about it that way. But again, it's also our.

The non-state experts who themselves we need, you know, if you will to rely on more they too are working in the intelligent business.

Just in a different form. It's not to find by only if you will class out information that we may have access to it's to find more broadly. Would the head of the nick from 10, 20, 30 years ago, what would he or she say to this idea that intelligence is the condition of being smarter and more insightful than, you know, your competitors and informing good policy.

“Some of that, I think everybody would always, you know, general donovan would have said yep. That's what I'd like. But but there's a certain agnostic quality as to the source of information that may be implicit in what you're saying.”

Can you bring that out? I mean, what are the differences really? What's really new about this?

So if our responsibility of which it is is to provide the best insight perspective possible to give the head of our government and our leadership in the NASQ to community. They got it. That's the now as we can provide to anticipate warm love and understand and explain key forces in the world. I'm not defining what I'm doing by the information I'm relying on, right, defining what I'm doing by that purpose.

Increasingly, as especially now as we understand, expertise, sharing of information, the experts for transnational issues as well.

We will be hurting ourselves if we only rely on that information that only we acquire, if you will, and you that is the classified form of intelligence or the secrets that only we have that others don't have. I'd be challenging ourselves to say, are we truly understanding everything about a given issue, if we're only looking and defining what we do beginning with what comes in and that, if you will, that classified inbox. Sort of flip the script, right, I don't determine what analysis I need to write based purely on something I read that's classified.

I'd determine what analysis I need to write based on what my policy makers are most needing and/or some observable that I've seen taking place in the international arena that I need to explain.

“I think that's really, really important to be as, again, as smart as we need to be on the issues we follow, but as we'll get into it and as the national intelligence strategy makes clear and various objectives.”

Be it the talent we want, the partnerships we need, the capabilities. You know, we need for the IC, the resilience we need for ourselves as well for those elements of US national power, we've got to be more, somehow in the middle of that conversation. And I think a more expansive definition, if you will, of the word intelligence, can help perhaps. Okay, so if you're focusing on being smart and you're not limiting yourself to particular trade craft that involves super secret, you know, exquisite sources and methods and all the nifty stuff that maybe only you guys can do.

I mean, you know, how much has the world changed? I'm thinking again if this conversation between you and your hypothetical predecessor who in the olden days might have relied on, you know, human intelligence and massive, second super, super cool stuff that can't be talked about that only you presumably have. And then might take their draft, you know, national intelligence estimate and send it around a Princeton and see what professor so and so has to carry on it. You're talking about a different world where if I'm hearing you right, I mean, you know, in the olden days the cake was secret stuff and the frosting was a little academic overlay on top of it.

And now maybe are you saying, geez, looks like frosting and cake of change places. We've got open source commercial data all this public intelligence out there and then we're going to layer on top of that a frosting of exquisite stuff that only we have is it has it really flipped to that degree or is it moving towards that or is that a stupid analogy.

“I think that's I think that the reasonable analogy, I don't know if I would necessarily wouldn't want to equate if you will the balance between the cake and the frosting.”

But let me begin by saying to be sure today and certainly as we move forward, we are going to our nation is going to continue to require only what can be obtained through, you know, to get out the hardest of the hard issues as it pertain to, you know, the intentions and motivations and capabilities of, you know, our hardest of challenges and such. No substitute for the tea for the microphone and Vladimir Putin's tea kettle or whatever, right, right. You really have a medical example folks. But in addition, I think as we've discussed, how more interconnected the world is the global economic commercial technological arenas, the increasing power and influence of what I call the fuel, the outer circle, the other issues in the world, the other

If we're only looking at and admiring just the inner circle of what the, you know, the state adversarial challenges are trying to do with what motivations and capabilities and we're not, if you will, at the outer circle, say understanding what makes populations in the world tick.

What are the things that matter most to those countries and audiences that we're competing with influence over.

“Then we're not going to sufficiently, I think, help the policymakers and our nation navigate these issues.”

We would be in balance to just look at one side as opposed, if you will, to the other, if that makes sense. So it makes sense to me, but when I take it seriously, I feel like the floor might be falling out from under me because it is such a quietly stated modestly presented radical proposal that I think is saying, "Hey, this is how I'm hearing. You can disagree and whatever, but it sounds like it's saying, "Hey, we need to completely rethink the way we do things because, you know, everybody went to the Fletcher School and trained in the 1980s and '90s is really used to focusing on, you know, what is the president of X countries, plans and intentions, and we need to spy on him or her up and down sideways.

And what I hear you saying in a very steady way, but I think it has big implications as way to minute, we got to look way broader than that.

We got to look at non-state entities, we got to look at non-traditional factors, these transnational elements. And so we got transnational elements affecting the world in a hard-nosed way, not because we're getting soft and woke or whatever, that we are interested in other things, but because those factors affect us. And the non-state entities that are out there affect us too, both because there's sources of information or insight or intelligence in the new sense you're talking about and we cannot ignore them.

And because they are geopolitically relevant as actors in the world stage and affect the way things actually come out.

“And you say it like you've got it figured out and it sounds very compelling, but is it not a fairly radical idea that would require a pretty significant rethink maybe retool?”

I may be overstating, but I feel like it's got a lot of won't find it. Yeah, I'm not alone, I don't think in this journey, I think others as well, who colleagues of mine across the community, you hear it increasingly to help our nation navigate this complicated, more contested international arena. If all we did again was to double down on the nation we're competing with, in particular the thoughts and motivations and goals of that leadership. We are not going to be able to as necessarily objectively frame whether we think they can succeed or what are the factors out there that were determined such success.

And they're in, all of our nations are increasingly dependent upon things in the transnational arena. And again, a lot of the expertise on these issues are heavily resident within the non-governmental domain experts studying these various issues. So I look at it more as opening up the book even more to ensure that we're thriving in and taking advantage of everything that's being done. Out there to understand and frankly, even expose the truth. You know, the fact that there are private sector entities that can increasingly identify via AI techniques or just really good investigative journalism, techniques find the truth openly, that's fantastic.

And it gives us something to work with, on which to use your metaphor, maybe sprinkle the frosting. There's going down and infamy.

“Yeah, so if the New York Times does a really great story on something, you're all happily take it, right?”

Well, and we have obviously to us as with anybody who's constantly challenged by the explosion of information that's out there. A good portion of which can be disinformation or disinformation or just simply opinion without instantiated empirical facts to be true to our tradecraft.

Of course, we have to find the primary source of whatever that claim was raw, critical thinking bears in.

But if I find something I've read that is well sourced and well researched, again, I keep saying this over and over.

And that's a common problem in many cultures, right? Not invented here means not good, and you're not alone in having that challenge.

And then by way of like the role of non-state actors, I'm trying to just give an example that makes it real for our audience.

“I mean, so you and I both are Bill Burns talking a lot about how one of the key if not the key for them in which competition with China will play out is technology.”

And I don't think there's anybody who thinks that, you know, today's cutting-edge technology, although it's a large language model or, you know, online advertising and not whatever it is, is really being developed in the first instance or controlled by

the US government, it isn't like the Manhattan Project or even right the moon landing.

Frankly, where we did kind of have a monopoly now, you've got, you know, God knows how many US and foreign companies trying to, you know, put rockets up there and you've got, you know, commercial cigarette. And you've got, you know, AI being developed everywhere, and I mean, I'm not going to ask you to comment on Ronan Ferro's recent New Yorker article, but you've got single individuals who can decide whether, you know, warfighters, and Ukraine either do or do not have good coms. I mean, that is right, that is just not the world that we remember from the 1940s of '50s, right? So like if you think technology matters and I think just about everybody does, you've got to acknowledge that private sector, non-state entities, sometimes individual humans have profound influence in a way that I think is different, right?

“I mean, that's just to make it real for people that's consistent with what you're correct.”

And when you appreciate as well what technology can itself also enable, say from a communications standpoint, the provision of basic services, governance standards in some case, in some case, mercenary militaries, if you will, they make other non-state entities, say social movements and political movements, all the more powerful, because now they have a means and easier means by which to be influential and to accomplish things. This clearly applies obviously in the cyber domain, but another domain as well. So it's both appreciation for, as you say David, where that innovation and where that technology is being developed and the tremendous influence that comes from that, be it commercial or just somebody wanting to be the best, whatever it is they want to innovate on.

That's happening obviously in the private sector, the non-state specific sector, but at the same time, I mean social media, you know, I remember the days when you used to rely on the newspaper in the nightly news, right, to find out what happened in the world. Now today anybody can report that and so social media itself as a non-state entity, these platforms provide a vehicle through which others can be influential and can affect things, whether in a foreign state or just internationally as well.

So, yeah, it's where we started and increasingly complicated international system with a increasingly eclectic array of actors.

You've got a hell of a job and a hell of a challenge in front of you, Michael Collins. I mean, I'm a little envious on the other hand, I'm slightly don't it. Do you think, I mean, your vision of this seems really well developed and clear and as you said, you're not alone.

“Others, I think, share your insights and vision, but I mean, do you think, I guess, two-part question, feel free to dodge either one.”

How much retooling, rethinking, reorientation, whether cultural or structural or operational does the I see need to do to really set itself up to succeed in this world, the world you've described, where intelligence means what you meet, what you say, it means a non-state entities are playing the role they play. What kind of work needs to be done, how much work and are they up to it? Are you up to it? I mean, do you think people will pivot and provide adapt over common adjust as needed, how long will it take, what's the process going forward?

So, if you're right. Yes, look, on the last point, definitely so. I'm an optimist through and through, but I also know this work is increasingly all the more foundational for our nation's success and it's why I do the job that I do. And I'm passionate about it, and I'm not the only one. The people I work with across the entirety of the U.S. I see are just as passionate about this. What I find is helpful in ensuring that we're moving forward as the national intelligence strategy is challenging this to do on those areas that make us better.

I think it's helpful and important for us to reflect on whether we in fact are doing so.

Because of something we're also doing that helps them, right, in part.

I would expect as well that if we're successful, the capabilities that we acquire from the non-state entities obviously will be increasing. To the point made earlier, because of our role we play in helping the larger government to ensure the resilience of our vital national security institutions, including those in the non-state arena, I would expect our organs of power if we will to be more resilient and protected from the threats. You made the point earlier, they are as well as an attack surface.

As we appreciate how powerful they are to our nation's security and to the larger geopolitical landscape.

I think the same applies as well to on any given strategy, are we getting the talent that we most need? Are we to the one point in the national intelligence strategy on innovative and interoperable solutions? Those are all things we can reflect on and objectively try to evaluate. I think that's really core. And it gets back to something I said earlier up front where when we're doing strategic analysis in an objective way, we are at the same time challenging ourselves and reflecting on whether we're doing it better.

“But you have to have there for in the back of your mind, what do I know that success actually looks like? And we're doing that and frankly, rightfully increasing the being held to account for it. I think that's really important.”

All right, so we are almost out of time. I'm going to make a plea, but after I'm done, I'm going to ask you whether you have any closing thoughts or stuff that we didn't cover that we should have.

But the plea is this on the talent front if you are in non-state expert with an understanding or intelligence that could be useful. Then, you know, send your cards and letters to Michael Collins at the National Intelligence Council. I've worked with Michael and he is good to work with. So this is a just undimitigated pitch for all you smarty pants people out there who might not have any connection to the IC. You know, send in your resume because there's some really, really interesting stuff that is really important and needs working on. So if you're listening, don't be shy.

“Okay, so Michael, any closing thoughts for our audience? Anything you wanted to cover that we didn't cover?”

Look, thanks David. I appreciate the call out. Look, what at a broader level, what many of us are advocating and you saw it as well referenced in the National Intelligence Strategy. The normalization, if you will, of what we do, is sort of related back to the point I made about intelligence. It is normal for us to want to study international affairs and to be a part of the rest of the nation and those frankly around the world who are also studying the same issues. We need to be a hard core national geopolitical issues or the transnational issues we discussed. We have to find a way to be more normal, if you will, in the way in which we do that.

You know, at the same time we're learning, frankly, from our engagements with the external community about how we make our work life more normal. They don't ever be as normal as you sitting in your basement drinking your coffee every day, and etc. Working from home, if I use that example, but we are trying to find ways, of course, to make work in the U.S. I see even more rewarding, to be the place where you can grow and innovate and be at the best of your craft, and at the same time be resilient yourself on the things that make you resilient.

We're being challenged by smart people like yourself and others to say, "Hey, what about this? What about this? What about this?" We can find ways to, if you will, meet this community halfway at least.

“All right, so there's a huge amount of rich content in this podcast, but I think we all know what the bumper sticker is going to be, be more normal.”

Okay, words to live by. Michael Collins, thank you very much. It's been terrific having you. I really appreciate your taking the time to talk with us today. Thank you David. Thank you for the great opportunity.

Do your current managed services really help run your operations, or are they just running in circles?

“Running isn't enough anymore. With PWC's managed services, your operations don't just run, they evolve continuously, powered by AI embedded directly into your workflows.”

So instead of maintaining yesterday's model, you're building tomorrow's advantage. PWC's managed services, we run your operations with tech and talent,

so you can run faster, scale smarter, lead stronger.