While U.S. intelligence operations are more controversial than ever, routine oversight of the Department of Defense’s massive and far-flung intelligence apparatus has been significantly reduced, according to a recent report to Congress from the DoD Inspector General.
Due to resource limitations, “We have not been able to perform planned audits and evaluations in key intelligence disciplines such as Imagery Intelligence, Measurement and Signature Intelligence and Open Source Intelligence,” the DoD Inspector General told Congress in a March 2008 report.
In addition, the report said, intelligence oversight has been cut back in areas such as: National Reconnaissance Office activities, especially major acquisitions; National Security Agency Operations Security and Information Security Programs; National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency programs; National Intelligence Program/Military Intelligence Program funding; Service Intelligence Component activities; Operations and Support Special Access Programs; DoD Counterintelligence Field Activity Programs; and others.
See “Department of Defense Inspector General Growth Plan for Increasing Audit and Investigative Capabilities Fiscal Years 2008 – 2015,” March 31, 2008.
The report was first published by the watchdog Project on Government Oversight which is working to strengthen the authority and capacity of agency inspectors general.
The reduction in oversight by the DoD Inspector General would seem to provide further justification for a pending proposal to assign new intelligence oversight responsibilities to the Government Accountability Office, as discussed at a February 29 hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.
FAS is launching the Center for Regulatory Ingenuity (CRI) to build a new, transpartisan vision of government that works – that has the capacity to achieve ambitious goals while adeptly responding to people’s basic needs.