Con la rielezione di Donald Trump alla Casa Bianca nel novembre 2024, l’intelligence community statunitense è tornata sotto i riflettori come terreno di scontro politico e strategico. Già nel primo mandato Trump aveva accusato la CIA, l’FBI e altre agenzie di aver tramato contro di lui, alimentando il cosiddetto “Russia hoax”. Non sorprende dunque che il secondo mandato si sia aperto con un’aggressiva agenda di riforme: tagli ai budget, ristrutturazioni, nuove nomine anti-establishment. La narrativa è chiara: “Drenare la palude”, ridimensionare quello che viene descritto come un apparato burocratico e politicizzato, e riportare l’intelligence “al servizio del popolo americano”.

Tulsi Gabbard, la direttrice anti-guerra

La scelta di Tulsi Gabbard come Direttrice dell’Intelligence Nazionale, confermata a febbraio 2025, segna una rottura simbolica e sostanziale. Ex deputata democratica, veterana delle guerre in Medio Oriente, critica delle missioni in Siria e Ucraina, Gabbard incarna un approccio isolazionista che piace a Trump e al suo elettorato. Il suo compito è coordinare le 18 agenzie con un bilancio che supera i 100 miliardi di dollari, riorientando le priorità: meno operazioni segrete non autorizzate, più trasparenza, fine delle interferenze politiche. Ma le critiche non mancano. I democratici la accusano di simpatie filo-russe e di inesperienza gestionale, mentre l’apparato tradizionale teme che la sua crociata anti-interventista finisca per depotenziare la capacità di intelligence in un momento in cui Cina e Russia rafforzano le loro reti globali.

Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, l’ex spia diventata riformatrice

La figura più sorprendente di questa stagione è però Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, entrata nell’amministrazione come Associate Director for Intelligence and International Affairs all’Office of Management and Budget. Con un passato da agente della CIA sotto copertura in Medio Oriente e Asia, Fox si era distinta non solo per le operazioni rischiose ma soprattutto per il distacco polemico dall’agenzia: accuse di corruzione, uso eccessivo di droni, torture, “imperialismo violento”. La sua autobiografia e le interviste a media conservatori l’hanno trasformata in una sorta di Whistleblower credibile agli occhi della base trumpiana.

Sposata con Ben Kennedy, figlio di Robert F. Kennedy Jr., ha portato nella nuova amministrazione un capitale politico unico: un ponte tra il clan Kennedy e la Casa Bianca. Dopo aver diretto la campagna presidenziale indipendente di RFK Jr. fino al suo ritiro a favore di Trump, Fox è stata inserita nei meccanismi del potere trumpiano. Inizialmente proposta come vicedirettrice della CIA sotto John Ratcliffe, è stata bloccata dal Senato, in particolare da Tom Cotton, che la considera “compromessa”. Ma Trump non ha rinunciato: prima la nomina al President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, poi l’incarico all’OMB, da cui controlla e “audita” i bilanci neri delle agenzie, i famosi black budgets da decine di miliardi di dollari.

Il nodo dei black budgets

Il cuore della missione di Fox è un tema da sempre avvolto dal segreto: i fondi riservati che alimentano operazioni coperte, tecnologie avanzate, attività di sorveglianza interna e, talvolta, interferenze politiche. L’obiettivo dichiarato è ridurre gli sprechi, impedire abusi, declassificare archivi storici e ricondurre la spesa sotto il controllo dell’esecutivo. Per Trump e i suoi alleati, questa è la leva per indebolire l’influenza di quella che definiscono una burocrazia ostile. Per i critici, è invece un’operazione di ritorsione che rischia di minare la sicurezza nazionale.

Divisioni politiche e accuse reciproche

La nomina di Fox ha suscitato reazioni contrastanti. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., ora Segretario alla Salute, la definisce “voce di integrità” e prova che il governo può riformarsi dall’interno. Trump l’ha celebrata come “guerriera per la verità”. Ma repubblicani conservatori e falchi, come Cotton, vedono nella sua biografia e nei legami familiari una vulnerabilità, mentre i democratici la accusano di conflitti di interesse per il ruolo avuto nella campagna di RFK Jr. Sui social, le opinioni oscillano tra chi la considera una spia disillusa pronta a smascherare il “deep State” e chi la descrive come pedina di una faida interna alla sicurezza americana.

Il significato geopolitico

L’offensiva di Trump contro l’intelligence non riguarda solo la politica interna. Una CIA ridimensionata e un apparato più controllato rischiano di indebolire la capacità americana di proiezione all’estero. In un mondo in cui Cina e Russia investono massicciamente in cyber, disinformazione e operazioni asimmetriche, il taglio del 20% al personale delle agenzie, previsto nei piani, potrebbe ridurre la capacità di prevenire crisi e conflitti. Al tempo stesso, però, questa riforma riflette un cambio di paradigma: meno focus su “nation building” e più attenzione agli interessi interni, più selettività nell’uso della forza e più spazio alla politica di potenza classica.

Conclusione

L’intreccio tra Tulsi Gabbard e Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, tra anti-interventismo e denuncia dei black budgets, segna una fase inedita della storia americana. La riforma dell’intelligence voluta da Trump 2.0 è al tempo stesso un’operazione politica contro i suoi nemici interni e una trasformazione strutturale che potrebbe cambiare il modo in cui Washington esercita la sua influenza nel mondo. Se sarà un ritorno al pragmatismo nazionale o un pericoloso indebolimento della capacità strategica, lo diranno i prossimi anni. Ma una cosa è chiara: mai come oggi l’intelligence USA è stata al centro della battaglia per l’anima della potenza americana.

L'articolo Tulsi e Amaryllis, a loro si affida Trump per riformare l’intelligence proviene da InsideOver.

Da un quarto di secolo, sotto l’acronimo IQT, si muove un attore atipico, sospeso tra finanza e intelligence. Non è un fondo di investimento tradizionale e non lo è mai stato. Creato dalla CIA negli anni Novanta come In-Q-Tel, ha un compito chiaro: intercettare le tecnologie di rottura prima che arrivino sul mercato, selezionare quelle con applicazioni critiche per la sicurezza nazionale e legarle all’ecosistema americano. In altre parole, prevenire che l’innovazione scivoli altrove, sia a Pechino, a Mosca o in qualche altro centro di potere emergente.

Se i capitali tradizionali scommettono su profitti futuri, IQT scommette sul potere. E il potere, oggi, non si misura più solo in carri armati o portaerei, ma nella capacità di dominare i dati, la geolocalizzazione, i satelliti, i sistemi di intelligenza artificiale.

Palantir e Google Earth: casi emblematici

Non è un caso che IQT abbia sostenuto società come Palantir, diventata oggi una delle colonne portanti della difesa e della sicurezza occidentale, o che abbia partecipato al finanziamento di un progetto poi evoluto nell’antenato di Google Earth. Dietro queste storie si intravede un disegno preciso: trasformare l’innovazione civile in strumento di supremazia geopolitica.

Palantir non è solo una piattaforma di analisi dati: è un sistema che permette a governi e intelligence di leggere e prevedere i comportamenti delle società contemporanee. Google Earth non è stato un semplice strumento di navigazione: è l’occhio che ha reso disponibile a tutti ciò che prima era monopolio dei satelliti militari.

Economia e sicurezza, le due facce della medaglia

Sul piano economico, IQT agisce come un acceleratore di politiche industriali occulte. Ogni start-up finanziata entra in un circuito in cui l’innovazione si lega ai contratti pubblici e alla difesa. Washington usa così il capitale privato per alimentare la sua superiorità strategica, riducendo i rischi di dipendenza e moltiplicando la sua influenza.

Per i partner – Europa inclusa – questo sistema rappresenta un dilemma. Collaborare con IQT significa accedere a fondi, mercati e network globali. Ma significa anche cedere quote di sovranità tecnologica, perché le tecnologie più promettenti finiscono inevitabilmente sotto il controllo americano.

La dimensione strategico-militare

Le tecnologie che IQT finanzia non sono neutre. Oggi non esiste più distinzione netta tra civile e militare. L’intelligenza artificiale può servire a ottimizzare catene di montaggio o a guidare sciami di droni. I sistemi di cybersecurity possono proteggere i dati di una banca o bloccare le comunicazioni di un esercito nemico. La realtà aumentata può animare videogiochi o addestrare soldati per la guerra urbana.

In questo senso, IQT diventa parte integrante del complesso militare-industriale americano, aggiornando la vecchia logica della “dual use technology”. Gli investimenti sono il preludio a nuove dottrine militari: la guerra cognitiva, la guerra dei dati, la guerra elettronica.

Lo specchio della competizione globale

Cina e Russia non stanno a guardare. Pechino, con i suoi fondi sovrani e colossi come Huawei, Tencent e Baidu, ha creato un ecosistema in cui ogni innovazione può essere assorbita dall’apparato statale. Mosca, più fragile economicamente, si affida a reti ibride di oligarchi e militari. Washington sceglie un’altra via: un fondo che agisce in modo discreto ma capillare, seminando capitali nei laboratori di mezzo mondo.

Il risultato è che IQT non solo alimenta il primato americano, ma crea anche dipendenze strutturali negli alleati. Chi accede al suo sostegno tecnologico diventa inevitabilmente parte della catena di comando americana. È il soft power del XXI secolo: non più Hollywood o McDonald’s, ma algoritmi, piattaforme di sorveglianza e reti di cybersecurity.

L’Europa e la sua fragilità

Il caso IQT evidenzia con brutalità le debolezze europee. L’Unione proclama la necessità di “autonomia strategica” e “sovranità digitale”, ma resta divisa tra la dipendenza militare da Washington e quella manifatturiera da Pechino. Senza un fondo analogo, senza una strategia unitaria, il Vecchio Continente si trova a giocare un ruolo marginale, oscillando tra due potenze che usano la tecnologia come arma di dominio globale.

L’intelligence finanziaria come nuova frontiera

IQT rappresenta l’evoluzione più sofisticata dell’intelligence contemporanea. Non più solo spie, intercettazioni o operazioni segrete. Oggi la vera sfida è anticipare l’innovazione, canalizzarla e trasformarla in leva di potere. È l’intelligence finanziaria, la capacità di usare il capitale di rischio come strumento di guerra economica e geopolitica.

In questo scenario, ogni start-up, ogni brevetto, ogni algoritmo può diventare il terreno di una nuova battaglia. Il mondo della tecnologia è il nuovo campo di guerra, e IQT è il generale silenzioso che traccia le linee di avanzata.

L'articolo IQT, il fondo della Cia che plasma lo sviluppo tecnologico americano proviene da InsideOver.

Many myths surround a successful entrepreneur. One of the biggest is that you’ll find success with your endeavour. However, the fact is about 20% of new businesses fail within the first year. That number climbs to 50% by the fifth year. Other myths include the traits of entrepreneurs: that they’re ‘genius’, they have “created a need, then fill the need” or that they’re hardscrabble people who built something in a dingy basement or a garage.

Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and the world’s richest man, is none of those things. He is, in fact, one of those rare “once in a lifetime” entrepreneurs. A Princeton University graduate who worked on Wall Street before deciding to start Amazon. It could be argued that he was the right person at the right time.

Luck also plays a role in the success of an entrepreneur.

Amazon.com opened its cyber doors in 1994 as strictly an online retailer of books. It’s grown since then and now along with Google, Facebook and Apple it’s considered one of the “big four” tech companies. The company also has an incredible market capitalization approaching one trillion dollars. Today, almost every type of product and service, aside from public insurance or medicine, is offered through Amazon or one of its many subsidiaries. Unless you live off the grid, Amazon is touching your life whether you’re aware of it or not.

But does Amazon have a strategy for an endgame? Surely their double-digit corporate growth and expansion can’t go on forever. Maybe they’re hedging their bets to see how big they can get before the United States Department of Justice steps in with antitrust law violations?

In short, antitrust laws exist for the benefit of consumers. The laws serve to keep companies from playing dirty. While price rigging, market allocation, and price-fixing all violate antitrust laws, it’s monopolies that are most associated with antitrust laws. One of the most recent well-known antitrust cases involved Microsoft’s anti-competitive practice by forcing its browsers on computers that had the Windows operating system.

Amazon’s reach, with almost 700,000 employees around the world the companies reach is far and wide. It’s largest and fastest-growing division, Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud hosting, has captured about 37% of that market but still isn’t considered a monopoly. If you stream shows from Netflix, they are AWS’s number one client spending around 19 million dollars a year. Other users in the top tier of AWS clients include Facebook, LinkedIn, and the BBC.

But they’re not only servicing companies like Netflix, ESPN, and the BBC, but they’re also in competition with them through their streaming service Amazon Prime Video and their production division, Amazon Studios. Their shows have won Emmy Awards, Golden Globe Awards and their 2017 Kenneth Lonergan film Manchester by the Sea was nominated for six Academy Awards including Best Picture, the first for a streaming service.

Have you watched a movie or show on Netflix and then looked up one of the actors on imdb.com? Well, that’s also owned by Amazon. Shopped at a Whole Foods? They’re owned by Amazon. Through Amazon Maritime, they own a Federal Maritime Commission license to monitor their shipments from China. The company is also in the process of building out its logistics division to directly compete with Federal Express and the United States Postal Service.

It’s hard to imagine that Bezos’s goal was the extinction of small businesses but it was most certainly to re-shape the way people shop. Unfortunately, both have taken place. In the world of retail, Amazon has had a crippling impact on many businesses, both small and large. Their flagship product, books, decimated the locally owned bookstore. They also levelled what was once a competitive national bookstore landscape in America that included Borders Books, B. Dalton, and Barnes and Noble, etc. Of those big-box retailers, only Barnes and Noble and a handful of discount bookstores that remain.

The Amazon impact on local economies is equally as dire. Since the advent of the indoor mall, local stores have struggled but with Amazon, they were run out of town. However, Amazon has said that it helps small businesses. In a press release from 2018, Amazon claims that small and medium-sized companies that sell on Amazon have created more than 900,000 jobs worldwide. Additionally, “more than 20,000 small and medium-sized companies surpassed $1 million in sales in 2017.”

As Amazon continued to grow and succeed, it became evident that Bezos wasn’t just going to stay within the confines of the internet. In 2013, Jeff Bezos paid $250 million to purchase, and save, The Washington Post newspaper. Even though many have claimed traditional media like newspapers were dying, even at the time, this was viewed as a smart investment.

Traditional media in America has a history of being liberal and The Washington Post was no different. Its long history includes breaking the Watergate story in the 1970s that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

Hoping to get a piece of the lucrative government contracting business, in 2014, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) awarded a $600 million contract to Amazon Web Services. Awarding the service to an outside contractor was considered a “radical departure” for the traditionally guarded and conservative intelligence community.

When Bezos purchased The Washington Post, he promised to maintain a distance and not have any influence over editorial decisions. But in 2013 no one could have predicted that Donald Trump would be elected President of the United States. By all accounts, Bezos has been very hands-off with the newspaper but given the current political climate, it’s no surprise that The Washington Post, like many others around the world, has been critical of President Trump. Accordingly, the newspaper, Amazon, and Bezos has caught the ire of President Trump.

Five years after landing the CIA contract, Amazon and other tech companies were bidding for a $10 billion Pentagon cloud computing contract. During the summer, President Trump began publicly questioning whether this contract was being competitively bid among companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM. An upcoming book “Holding The Line: Inside Trump’s Pentagon with Secretary Mattis” even claims that President Trump told then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis to “screw amazon.”

Already having a foothold in the business, Amazon was considered the top contender for the contract. However, after an intense lobbying effort by other tech companies, the $10 billion Pentagon cloud computing contract was awarded to Microsoft, shocking many.

Amazon responded to losing the Pentagon contract by filing a lawsuit claiming “the procurement process was compromised and negatively affected by the bias [against Amazon] expressed publicly by the president and commander in chief, Donald Trump.”

The many businesses of Amazon would encompass a Venn diagram that incorporates almost every aspect of modern life. With that said, the antitrust law definition of monopoly, “dominance of an industry or sector by one company or firm while cutting out the competition” is probably the very thing that has allowed Amazon to continue to thrive. By that definition, Amazon doesn’t qualify as a monopoly. For example, Amazon doesn’t prohibit a small business from selling its products on Amazon, they encourage it…and they will even distribute it.

Furthermore, Amazon came to prominence in a new environment, the internet. And to be a monopoly it must be proven that Amazon didn’t become the behemoth it is through anything other than business acumen and innovation.

In 2018, Forbes Magazine published an article stating that Amazon was not a monopoly because “a monopoly occurs when complete control of the entire supply of goods or a service in a certain area or market rests with a single entity.”

Alarm bells don’t ring at the US Department of Justice until “a market share of greater than 50%” has been reached (and at 37% of the market, Amazon Web Services is coming close).

At a cursory look, Amazon looks like it would be a monopoly. However, they currently account for about 5% of retail sales in the US (and 1% globally) and even though that number is expected to double to 10% by 2020, they would still fall below the 50% needed to qualify as a monopoly.

The endgame for Amazon and Bezos looks to be rather simple – world domination. That may sound hyperbolic, but the company has a foothold in almost every imaginable business, currently operates in 17 countries and for the quarter ended 30 September 2019 had a 24% increase in revenue compared to the previous year. The company continues to grow and continues to diversify.

All things considered, maybe world domination isn’t Amazon’s endgame. With Bezos’ space travel company Blue Origin, he’s got his eyes set on space too.

L'articolo Amazon Looks Towards World Domination…and Beyond proviene da InsideOver.

Collateral damage is a tragic inevitably of any war, but when military attacks go awry and kill only civilians without striking intended enemy militants, it opens up the door for a broad range of questions. Such an unfortunate situation happened recently when over 30 pine nut farmers were killed by a Central Intelligence Agency drone in Afghanistan. The Sept. 19 attack shocked the Middle Eastern nation. While it is no stranger to war, an American attack on civilians far removed from terrorist targets is unusual. 

Innocent farmers

American drones struck as night began to fall in the eastern province of Nangarhar. In addition to the fatalities, US drones also injured 40 other workers.

“The workers had lit a bonfire and were sitting together when a drone targeted them,” tribal elder Malik Rahat Gul told Reuters. 

The attack at Wazir Tangi was intended to destroy a Daesh hideout. Details on how it ended up striking pine nut farmers instead have not yet been revealed and perhaps never will. Residents voiced their anger at the attack by calling for an apology and financial reimbursement from Washington. 

“Such mistakes cannot be justified. American forces must realize (they) will never win the war by killing innocent civilians,” said Javed Mansur, a resident of Jalalabad city where victims were buried the following morning. 

Civilian casualties in Afghanistan are on course for a record high this year. The United Nations estimated that for the first half of the year, there were 1,366 deaths and 2,446 injured, putting the year on pace to exceed the previous three years, each of which tallied more than 5,000 victims. To be clear, the UN records civilian victims from all sources, including terrorist groups such as Daesh as well as established militaries such as America and its allies. However, the drone strike on the farmers cast America in a bad light as US President Donald Trump continues to expand the US drone program while simultaneously reducing its accountability to the American public. 

Under former President Barack Obama, the U.S. drastically amplified its drone usage. During his first year in office, he directed the CIA and Pentagon to launch more drones than his predecessor did in 16 years— 53 strikes in Pakistan. After expanding the drone usage to Yemen and Syria, Obama too incurred the wrath of negative press over civilian deaths. Because of this, only three strikes were carried out in Pakistan during the final year of his presidency. 

Under Trump, there were 100 in Yemen alone during 2017, up from Obama’s 44 for the state in the previous year. Furthermore, while his predecessors focused drone strikes on al-Qaeda fighters, Trump’s military is targeting any militants opposing the Afghan government. 

Into Africa

While all branches of the American military use drones to some extent, it is the CIA which has received renewed focus under Trump, and not just in the Middle East, but Africa too. In Nigeria, officials said American drones have been using the Dirkou airport as a makeshift base for launching strikes in Libya. Maj. Sheryll Klinkel, a Defense Department spokeswoman, denied U.S drones operate out of Dirkou, despite a New York Times reporter witnessing them take off and land. 

The CIA also opened a $110 million base in Agadez, Niger which began operations at the beginning of the year. Drones from the bases in Niger are also used in Somalia to strike al-Shabaab terrorists. Between the CIA and Pentagon, 30 raids were carried out in 2017. 

When Trump came to office, he not only ramped up the drone strikes, but also removed some of their civilian casualty accountability as well, undoing a piece of Obama’s legacy. When Obama came under fire for collateral damage, he instituted several measures to bring order to how strikes were carried out, which included greater coordination between military intelligence and the CIA.  A single database was shared between them to analyze target and evaluate their threat levels. 

Also, he created what became known as the Presidential Policy Guidance. This manual specified that if a strike were to be carried out in area outside of a war zone, the president’s entire cabinet must agree to it and, importantly, there should be “near certainty” that civilians will not become caught in the crossfire.

No accountability

Under Trump, those measures are most-certainly expelled as remnants of an era he seeks to undo. Had the rules been authored by George W. Bush, a Republican president, perhaps Trump would have been willing to abide by them. 

Critically, Trump revoked an Obama executive order mandating the CIA to report on civilian casualties outside of war zones. According to a Nations Security council spokesman, the action removes “superfluous reporting requirements that do not improve government transparency, but rather distract our intelligence professionals from their primary mission.” While it’s true that the National Defense Authorization Act requires the White House to submit an annual report on civilian casualties, this information is limited to the common war zone areas, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, the NDAA does not apply to the CIA as did the Obama-era executive order. Consequently, a CIA attack in Africa would not make the report given to Congress. 

The removal of CIA reporting requirements comes at a time when the White House is increasing its reliance on unmanned aerial vehicles. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimated that there have been 2,243 drone strikes in the first two years of Trump’s tenure. By comparison, there were only 1,878 in Obama’s entire eight-year administration. With the recent killing of innocent Afghan farmers and the aggressive CIA rollout in Africa, perhaps there should be more reporting instead of less.

L'articolo Trump Expands CIA Drone Strikes While Reducing Accountability proviene da InsideOver.