The Pentagon has denied reports that military leaders are developing an expanded undercover intelligence network and a specialized office for disrupting foreign weapons technologies, despite accounts from current and former national security officials describing both initiatives.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Pentagon denied Thursday, Oct. 22, that it is expanding clandestine intelligence and technological sabotage operations against China and other foreign adversaries, rejecting separate reports describing a proposed undercover spy network and a newly established office focused on disrupting military technology development.
The Washington Post reported that defense officials were considering a network of military intelligence operatives working under civilian identities to conduct economic and intelligence operations against strategic competitors.
Separately, Politico reported that the Defense Department established a Technology Support Office in April to develop tools capable of interfering with foreign military research, weapons systems and advanced technology programs.
Pentagon deputy press secretary Jacob Bliss disputed both accounts.
“This query appears to be built on information that is simply not true,” Bliss told the publications. “Whoever is feeding you these claims are either badly misinformed or deliberately leading you astray to peddle their fantasies.”
According to the Washington Post, the proposed intelligence initiative would expand the use of operatives working under nonofficial cover, commonly known as NOCs.
Unlike intelligence personnel operating through embassies or military installations, these individuals would assume civilian identities, potentially posing as business executives or private-sector professionals without publicly acknowledging government affiliations.
Six people familiar with the discussions reportedly described the initiative as being in the planning stages, with no operational network established.
The effort is reportedly being overseen by Tom Rakusan, a 39-year CIA veteran serving as a senior adviser to Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg.
Former CIA personnel and military intelligence specialists have reportedly participated in preliminary planning, although questions remain about the proposed program’s organizational structure, legal authorities and operational oversight.
The Washington Post reported that congressional intelligence and defense committees did not appear to have received formal briefings on the proposed initiative.
The separate Technology Support Office described by Politico would serve a different function.
Rather than directly managing undercover intelligence operatives, the office would develop capabilities intended to interfere with foreign military technology programs before those systems could threaten American forces.
According to Politico, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Feinberg created the office by reorganizing two existing classified intelligence programs that had conducted similar activities on a smaller scale since 2023.
An April 14 memorandum signed by Feinberg reportedly placed the new office under the Pentagon’s intelligence and security leadership.
The office’s proposed capabilities include cyber intrusion tools, supply-chain interference, deceptive technical components and methods for disrupting foreign weapons development.
One former intelligence official familiar with the initiative described its objective as finding ways to “buy time or stop adversaries from developing technologies” that could threaten U.S. military forces.
Such capabilities could potentially target advanced drone systems, artificial intelligence applications, weapons components and other technologies developed by American adversaries.
Politico reported that the office would not independently possess authority to conduct clandestine operations. Instead, its personnel would develop tools and coordinate with authorized military and intelligence organizations responsible for operational decisions.
Former Marine Corps special operations officer Grant Hundley was reportedly selected to lead the office during the summer.
The office’s precise budget remains undisclosed, although a former senior Pentagon intelligence official estimated that classified contracts associated with the initiative could exceed $1.5 billion.
The reported programs have also generated questions about overlapping responsibilities within the national security establishment.
Former CIA officials reportedly expressed concerns that an expanded military network of deep-cover operatives could duplicate intelligence activities traditionally managed by the agency.
Meanwhile, U.S. Special Operations Command and U.S. Cyber Command reportedly raised objections to the Technology Support Office over potential conflicts involving existing missions and budget allocations.
Congressional oversight has emerged as another issue.
Politico reported that some congressional officials had received information about the Technology Support Office, although the number of lawmakers and staff members briefed was limited.
A former senior Pentagon official questioned whether the proposed arrangements provided sufficient accountability for sensitive operations.
“But the questions are: What are the approval structures, what is the oversight, who is read in to give the American people confidence that what you’re doing is consistent with our values and you’re not creating something that five years from now will be seen as incredibly problematic?” the official said.
Bliss defended the department’s relationship with lawmakers, saying the Pentagon “values its longstanding working relationship with Congress” and would continue providing information necessary for congressional oversight.
Supporters of expanded technological disruption capabilities argue that the United States needs additional tools to respond to adversaries increasingly incorporating artificial intelligence, autonomous drones and commercially available technologies into military systems.
“It is a refocus from the highest levels of the government on this type of activity, which has been sorely needed,” a former senior Pentagon intelligence official told Politico.
The two reports describe initiatives at different stages: one involving a proposed expansion of undercover intelligence activities and the other involving an office reportedly established earlier this year.
Neither account establishes that the Pentagon has authorized specific covert attacks or technological sabotage missions.
With the department publicly rejecting the allegations and significant operational details remaining classified or disputed, the existence, scope and potential implementation of the reported initiatives remain unresolved.
Original article
Comments