Which came first: The Cloister at Sea Island, the Office of Strategic Services, or the CIA? The resort wins. The Cloister first opened in 1928, fourteen years before the OSS and nineteen before CIA. It was a fitting setting for The Cipher Brief’s 10th Threat Conference, where conversations returned repeatedly to a question familiar to generations of intelligence professionals: how do we adapt quickly enough to meet the threats ahead?
Over three and a half days, national security practitioners (we counted at least four four-star generals, over a dozen Chiefs of Station and three agency heads), industry leaders, journalists, and former senior officials examined what that adaptation requires. While the grounds were truly breathtaking, it was the windowless ballroom that drew in the national security diehards. Across discussions of threats to the US, artificial intelligence, commercial capabilities, intelligence tradecraft, and talent, we heard a common imperative: America’s national security institutions need to move faster. We left encouraged by the possibilities and concerned about the cost of delay. A few themes stood out, connecting what must change with what we cannot afford to lose:
Technology: Opportunity and Exposure: If we had a dollar for every time we discussed technology, we would own Sea Island or at least one of the homes there! From computer vision and ubiquitous technical surveillance to disinformation campaigns and AI-accelerated cyber operations, there was little disagreement that today’s technology is reshaping intelligence work and the threat landscape. These capabilities create extraordinary opportunities for intelligence collection and analysis while giving adversaries new ways to surveil, deceive, and attack.
We discussed the sobering lessons from Ukraine’s battlefield, and those discussions sharpened another question: are we prepared to stay focused, learn, and adapt as technology is developed and employed in real time? Those lessons demonstrate both the opportunities and the risks of failing to move now, with fascinating questions still open about AUTOWARCOM’s implementation. As one speaker remarked, it is “open season” for cyber operations. The October 29 attack, only a day after our conference closed, on cryptocurrency exchange Binance provided a sobering example of the stakes.
Going Commercial- More Than Ever: The Cipher Brief team underscored that industry is driving advances in intelligence capabilities, making closer cooperation across a broader range of sectors essential. Government must identify, acquire, and integrate those capabilities at the speed technology evolves.
That requires more open dialogue: government needs to understand what industry can deliver, and industry needs a clearer understanding of mission needs and constraints. Both must address slow acquisition timelines, security and classification requirements, data access, intellectual property rights, and barriers to moving talent between sectors, while maintaining ethical standards and safeguards against conflicts of interest.
The private sector must also reckon with the responsibilities that accompany becoming integral to national security operations. Discussion of Starshield underscored difficult questions about who sets the terms of support, who decides when capabilities can be used, and whether government can count on their availability when it matters most.
Startups need a meaningful place at the table. Many lack the staff, resources, and procurement experience of established defense contractors, yet offer some of the most creative solutions. Turning that innovation into mission capability requires practical help navigating government requirements and a willingness by primes to give smaller partners meaningful workshare.
Tradecraft Still Matters: One of the best parts of the Cipher Threat Conference is a battery recharge of the importance of espionage, tradecraft and underscoring that there is no substitute for the human context that makes for exceptional insights into our adversaries. The national security apparatus needs to make sure that in the euphoria of AI the community does not forget the traditional intelligence disciplines and our writ to steal secrets wherever and however we find them. Each of the panels highlighted that the human use and capitalization of technology is where the magic happens and also humans are our targets and we need to remain focused on their values, their strengths and weaknesses as we use tech as a tool.
The Chiefs of Station reinforced this point in discussing HUMINT, but it applies equally to the reflections shared of GEOINT and SIGINT. AI can enhance each of these disciplines. It cannot replace the sources, collection capabilities, tradecraft, and human judgment on which they depend. As we modernize, we must strengthen and reimagine how to use those foundations alongside the technologies that help us exploit them.
Talent: The People Make the Mission Possible: Anyone who has served in the Intelligence Community knows the refrain: people make the mission possible. If AI was the conference’s dominant theme, talent was a close second. How can we meet increasingly complex threats if we are not attracting the right people, retaining critical expertise, and reimagining what a career in intelligence can look like? Discussions reflected concern about the scale of recent federal departures, competition with private sector compensation, and a new generation of recruits whose ambitions may not include forty years in one organization. But there is opportunity here too. Fresh ideas, varied perspectives, and an increasingly digital native workforce can reinvigorate institutions that offer opportunities to serve found nowhere else.
During our government careers, the expectation was largely that intelligence would be a lifelong professional home. That model still has value, but it cannot be the only path. The Community needs to accommodate people who serve for several years, build experience in industry or academia, and return with new skills and perspectives. Making those transitions practical would benefit both government and the broader national security enterprise.
That requires shorter hiring timelines (yes, we still wrestle with this), workable processes for maintaining or reestablishing security clearances, and career paths that value experience gained outside government, making it easier for talent to move between government and industry. Compensation deserves attention too. Government may not match technology sector salaries, but competitive benefits, childcare, educational support, and opportunities for professional growth can strengthen its appeal. The mission remains a powerful draw, but we cannot expect commitment to service alone to overcome a system that makes joining, staying, or returning unnecessarily difficult.
Optimism Among Professional Pessimists: Three days of discussing threats and vulnerabilities could leave anyone discouraged. Yet throughout the conference, urgency, frustration, and concern shared the stage with energy and optimism that this is a moment when the US can get things right and reinforce its advantages over its adversaries. Who would have thought?
Success is hardly guaranteed. Still, there was a recurring conviction that we can rise to difficult challenges, even against the clock, against the odds, and in a challenging national security environment. Industry leaders described work underway with government partners, giving substance to that optimism. National security professionals are rarely known for sunny outlooks, but even we were struck by the energy and determination in the room. There certainly was a thread of renewed commitment to turn promising capabilities into mission results, strengthen intelligence and defense advantages, and protect the US from those who would do it harm.
NOW! NOW! NOW!
Everyone discussed that America has a history of being able to overcome crisis and meet new demands when needed. The characterization that the US is “expending readiness” quieted the room, capturing the concern that delay carries a cost. There was a shared agreement that we are moving too slowly. It is clear what needs to happen and it is happening but maybe not fast enough.
The question was asked about whether we had learned the lessons of the past where we put off change until we were forced into it by a cataclysmic event like Pearl Harbor or 9/11. The establishment of the DNI is an example of that. The IC and lawmakers all knew that an entity outside of CIA was needed to be the integrator of intelligence. There was draft legislation that developed this entity as early as 1995, but it was not until after the horrific attacks on the United States in 2001 that the DNI was established, once it became clear that stovepipes in the intelligence community contributed to those attacks. Several discussions also raised a more fundamental question: are we organized for today’s challenges, and which elements of the framework established by the National Security Act of 1947 still serve us well, versus those that need to evolve? Not for this Cipher conference to tackle.
The bottom line was that we are at a moment when thoughtful change for our national security community is possible. Do not squander this moment.
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
