Security Without Chaos

Why America Needs Coordinated Intelligence—Not Fragmented Power

2028 Presidential Campaign of Martin A. Ginsburg, RN

February 12, 2026

The national security architecture of the United States has reached a breaking point—not because of a failure of patriotism or talent within its agencies, but because its institutional structure no longer fits the nature of the threats it faces. The proposed Department of National Intelligence and Security Coordination (DNISC) begins from a simple but powerful premise: the fragmentation of intelligence and security responsibilities across dozens of federal entities has created blind spots, duplicative operations, jurisdictional turf wars, and delayed responses in moments of national peril.

“In the aftermath of every modern security failure, we have been told it was a failure to connect the dots. The Department of National Intelligence and Security Coordination exists to ensure the dots are not scattered across 17 different maps.”

I. The Candidate’s Premise: Intelligence Coordination as a Democratic Imperative

The candidate’s vision for this department is rooted not only in operational necessity but in constitutional stewardship. Intelligence is power—and in a democratic society, concentrated power demands both clarity and accountability. The current system, in which different intelligence bodies report through different Cabinet Secretaries or in some cases outside the Cabinet structure altogether, fails both operationally and democratically. The DNISC will centralize domestic intelligence coordination not to expand surveillance powers, but to align intelligence resources around accountable, civilian-led, and constitutional frameworks.

“Intelligence without accountability invites abuse. Intelligence without integration invites disaster. America deserves neither.”

This department is designed not as an end-run around existing institutions, but as an administrative realignment that recognizes the impossibility of 21st-century security coordination under 20th-century structures. The national candidate has made clear: real security is not the proliferation of agencies—it is the orchestration of purpose.

II. Structural Problems with the Status Quo

Today, intelligence and security responsibilities are distributed across:

• The FBI, under the Department of Justice, responsible for domestic counterintelligence and national security investigations.

• The CIA, reporting to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), focused on foreign intelligence outside U.S. territory.

• DHS and its component agencies (e.g., ICE, TSA, CBP, CISA), managing border security, cybersecurity, and critical infrastructure protection.

• The NSA, primarily responsible for signals intelligence and communications monitoring, also operating under the Department of Defense.

• The Drug Enforcement Administration, ATF, and numerous military intelligence entities, each with partial overlaps in mandate.

This arrangement leads to institutional stovepipes, political misalignment, and missed opportunities for preemptive threat response. Many post-9/11 reforms attempted to remedy this with coordinating bodies such as the ODNI or the National Counterterrorism Center. But these solutions were additive rather than integrative—they created additional bodies to harmonize communication between existing agencies but lacked the statutory muscle to compel unified action.

“We’ve created a web of coordination centers without a central hub of operational authority. When the clock is ticking, bureaucratic courtesy kills clarity.”

III. A Department with Real Teeth and Democratic Limits

The DNISC will not simply act as a passive convening point. It will:

• House the National Threat Integration Command (NTIC), a real-time data fusion center combining federal law enforcement intelligence, military threat briefings, foreign intelligence, cyber incident data, and state/local input.

• Integrate the domestic intelligence arms of the FBI, DHS, and elements of the DEA into one chain of operational accountability for national threats.

• Provide intelligence briefings directly to the President through the Secretary of National Intelligence and Security Coordination, elevating this Cabinet official to co-equal status with the Secretaries of Defense and State in security decision-making.

• Coordinate with the restructured Department of Foreign Affairs and Global Strategy (formerly State Department) to ensure that foreign intelligence insights are linked with emerging domestic threats—such as election interference, propaganda campaigns, and influence operations.

• Develop institutional safeguards through the creation of the Office of Civil Liberties and Intelligence Integrity, with independent oversight, judicial interface, and mandatory reporting to Congress.

“The intelligence community must be effective, not omnipotent—coordinated, not coercive. This department will walk that line with transparency as its compass.”

IV. Interagency and Congressional Alignment

Rather than attempting to dissolve or abolish existing intelligence agencies, the DNISC will define their role within a clarified chain of coordination. For instance:

• The CIA will remain a foreign intelligence agency reporting to the DNI, but all assessments with domestic implications will be funneled through DNISC systems for real-time coordination with relevant domestic actors.

• The FBI will continue to conduct criminal investigations, but its counterintelligence and national security divisions will operate under DNISC-led coordination protocols.

• DHS’s cybersecurity and infrastructure protection functions will be absorbed into the DNISC to streamline redundancy and ensure a unified threat picture.

Congressional authorization will be sought to establish a unified statutory mandate for domestic intelligence sharing, akin to the Goldwater-Nichols Act for military joint operations. This will codify the requirement for shared doctrine, training, communications platforms, and response protocols across all participating agencies.

“You cannot ask agencies to coordinate without giving them the tools—and the obligation—to do so. This department creates both.”

V. Technology, Cybersecurity, and Forward-Threat Management

The DNISC will be the central home of the nation’s cyber-intelligence and resilience planning. In today’s hybrid threat environment, cyberattacks are not the side show—they are the opening move. Whether ransomware cripples hospitals, or digital disinformation corrodes elections, the DNISC will treat the digital sphere as a primary battlefield.

It will create a Digital Threat Response Corps, integrating cybersecurity talent from across government and vetted private-sector partners, empowered to act preemptively, respond in real time, and counterattack within lawful boundaries when U.S. infrastructure is under assault.

“We must abandon the fantasy that cyberattacks are anonymous acts of God. They are acts of war, and our response must be clear, lawful, and immediate.”

VI. Democratic Safeguards and Cultural Norms

A cornerstone of the candidate’s approach is that coordination and centralization must not become license for unchecked surveillance. The DNISC will:

• Operate under strict transparency requirements for all surveillance tools deployed domestically.

• Establish a Senate-confirmed Civil Liberties Monitor with full access to departmental systems and classification waivers.

• Create internal firewalls between law enforcement operations and political leadership, ensuring no intelligence activity can be weaponized for partisan aims.

• Require public sunset and renewal of domestic surveillance authorities under a ten-year statutory cap.

“If we cannot design a national intelligence system that both protects our people and respects our freedoms, we don’t deserve either.”

VII. Conclusion: A Department for a New Strategic Era

The Department of National Intelligence and Security Coordination is not a symbolic rebranding. It is a structural recalibration of the federal government’s most sacred trust: to protect the American people without betraying the values that define them. It reflects the reality that the lines between domestic and international threats have blurred, and that only a unified, accountable, and resilient intelligence infrastructure can defend a 21st-century democracy.

“Security is not the enemy of liberty. But disorganized, chaotic, and unaccountable security is. This department will restore trust by restoring order—constitutionally, transparently, and strategically.”