The Daily Caller · rightNews report

The Deep State Is Leaking Trump’s Most Sensitive Undercover Operations To The Washington Post

Open the full analysis → Read the original article at The Daily Caller →

TL;DR

Washington Post reports the Pentagon is developing a deep-cover intelligence program to place operatives in private businesses to gather intelligence on China.
Six people familiar with it gave details; Tom Rakusan reportedly leads it, and a Pentagon spokesman says the claims are untrue.
The article suggests leakers may be motivated by grudges and a turf war with the CIA.

How is it written?

Wording2 of 11 paragraphs use rhetorical techniques, all in the writer’s own words

Wording

18%2 of 11 paragraphs use a rhetorical technique

All in the writer’s own words.

Plus 2 paragraphs where people quoted use charged words. Shown, not counted.

Tap a technique to see where it’s used.

What these techniques mean

Loaded Language · in 2 paragraphs Emotionally charged words that push a reaction instead of giving information.Show the first one ↓

Conspiracy Appeal · in 1 paragraph Implying hidden, coordinated wrongdoing without showing it.Show the first one ↓

Appeal to Fear · in 1 paragraph Raising a threat to drive the reader’s view.Show the first one ↓

Name Calling · in 1 paragraph A label used to mock or discredit instead of an argument.Show the first one ↓

HeadlinePROGoes further than the article

Pro shows the article’s own words behind this finding.

Deep analysis is part of Semblen Pro: the headline set against the article, who gets to speak and how much, claims left without a response, and corrections, for every article you analyze. See Semblen Pro · Try it free for 14 days, no card needed.

About wording, sourcing and context, not whether it’s true or which side is right. How we check

Who gets to speak?

Who’s quotedOne-sided: 3 attributed statements

Analysts and experts 2Organizations and media 1

The Washington Post · Organizations and media
Anonymous former CIA official · Analysts and experts
Another former senior CIA official · Analysts and experts

The article's sourcing is heavily weighted toward US government and intelligence community perspectives. All three named/identifiable sources are from the US side (media outlet reporting on Pentagon activities, and former CIA officials). No perspectives from China, foreign adversaries, or independent international observers are included. The reliance on anonymous sources and internal US government viewpoints creates a significant imbalance toward the American government position.

Left unansweredPROClaims about others without a response

Pro shows the article’s own words behind this finding.

Anonymous sourcesPRO3 anonymous sources

Pro shows the article’s own words behind this finding.

Do the claims hold up?

ClaimsCheck the factual claims in this article →

What’s missing?

What the article leaves out

The article omits the post-9/11 Pentagon HUMINT expansion under Rumsfeld, a direct precedent for current interagency friction.
It does not address EO 12333 or whether a Pentagon NOC program would require a presidential finding or congressional notification.
The documented 2010–2012 Chinese dismantling of CIA networks inside China — a major NOC-related breach — goes unmentioned.
The Espionage Act's potential applicability to the six sources who disclosed details of an alleged classified program is not raised.

Background

The CIA, established in 1947, has historically managed Non-Official Cover officers who operate without diplomatic protection.
The Pentagon's DIA and CIA have repeatedly clashed over human intelligence authorities, especially after 9/11.
Executive Order 12333 and the National Security Act define legal boundaries for covert intelligence collection across agencies.
China's Ministry of State Security, founded in 1983, is a leading foreign intelligence threat to US personnel and programs.

The article focuses on the alleged leak and the personalities involved, but omits several pieces of documented historical context that bear on the story's significance. First, the article does not mention the documented history of Pentagon HUMINT expansion. Following the September 11 attacks, the Department of Defense — under then-Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — aggressively expanded its clandestine human intelligence activities, creating the Strategic Support Branch and other units that operated in tension with the CIA's traditional HUMINT mandate. This is a well-documented precedent for the kind of interagency friction the article describes. Second, the article does not reference the legal framework governing covert action and HUMINT. The National Security Act and subsequent executive orders (particularly Executive Order 12333, first signed in 1981 and amended in 2008) define the boundaries of intelligence collection and covert action authorities across agencies. Whether a Pentagon-run NOC program would require a presidential finding or congressional notification is a substantive legal question the article does not raise. Third, the article does not address the documented history of Chinese counterintelligence successes against US NOC-style operations. Between approximately 2010 and 2012, China dismantled a significant portion of the CIA's human intelligence network inside China, resulting in the death or imprisonment of numerous sources — a breach that remains one of the most damaging in recent CIA history. Fourth, the article does not note the Espionage Act or the legal exposure of the six sources who disclosed details of an allegedly classified program.

Background. The organization of American intelligence has been shaped by decades of legislation, executive action, and interagency competition. The Central Intelligence Agency was established by the National Security Act of 1947, which also created the framework for coordinating intelligence across the executive branch. The CIA's Directorate of Operations has historically managed human intelligence (HUMINT) collection, including the Non-Official Cover (NOC) program, in which officers operate abroad without diplomatic protection, posing as private-sector employees. NOC officers, if captured, cannot claim diplomatic immunity and face greater personal risk than officers operating under official cover.

The Pentagon's own intelligence arm, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was established in 1961 to consolidate military intelligence. Tensions between the CIA and the Department of Defense over HUMINT authorities have recurred throughout the post-Cold War era. After the September 11 attacks, the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act restructured the community under a Director of National Intelligence, but interagency competition over roles, budgets, and authorities persisted. The Department of Defense significantly expanded its clandestine human intelligence activities in the 2000s and 2010s, at times generating friction with the CIA over operational boundaries and legal authorities.

Unauthorized disclosures of classified intelligence programs have a long and contested history in the United States. The Espionage Act of 1917 has been used to prosecute leakers, and successive administrations have pursued leak investigations with varying intensity. High-profile cases — including the exposure of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity in 2003 and Edward Snowden's 2013 disclosures — prompted public debate about the balance between government secrecy and press freedom. The exposure of covert operatives or ongoing programs can compromise sources, methods, and the safety of personnel in the field.

China's Ministry of State Security (MSS), established in 1983, is the primary civilian intelligence and counterintelligence agency of the People's Republic of China. US counterintelligence officials have repeatedly identified the MSS as one of the most active foreign intelligence services targeting American personnel, technology, and institutions.

Central Intelligence Agency ↗Non-official cover ↗Defense Intelligence Agency ↗Executive Order 12333 ↗Ministry of State Security (China) ↗Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act ↗

Generated by Claude from public sources.

The article, with notes

underlined: technique found; pick one to highlight its words dashed edge: in a quote, not counted tap a technique for why

Headline

“The Deep State Is Leaking” … “Most Sensitive Undercover Operations”

↓

The article’s own words

Conspiracy Appeal · “The Deep State Is Leaking”Why ›

Invokes the 'Deep State' as a hidden hostile actor secretly leaking operations, implying shadowy coordination beyond the public record.

Loaded Language · “Most Sensitive Undercover Operations”Why ›

Emotionally charged framing of leaks as attacks on the 'most sensitive' operations is designed to provoke alarm rather than convey verified facts.

Paragraph 2 of 11

“exposed sensitive details” … “clandestine espionage program” … “potentially revealing American intelligence strategies to foreign adversaries” … “legacy media”

↓

The article’s own words

Loaded Language · “exposed sensitive details”, “clandestine espionage program”, “foreign adversaries”Why ›

Emotionally charged wording like 'exposed' and 'clandestine' and the framing of 'revealing ... to foreign adversaries' casts the reporting as damaging to national security.

Appeal to Fear · “potentially revealing American intelligence strategies to foreign adversaries”Why ›

Suggests the leak endangers national security by helping foreign adversaries, stirring anxiety about a threat.

Name Calling · “legacy media”Why ›

The label 'legacy media' is a derogatory term used to discredit news outlets rather than address their reporting.

4 paragraphs with no finding

Paragraph 7 of 11

“pipe swinger”

↓

a White House official during Trump's first term (one of the leakers)’s words · not counted

Name Calling · “pipe swinger”Why ›

The anonymous former colleague uses a derogatory label to discredit Rakusan personally rather than address any argument.

3 paragraphs with no finding

Paragraph 11 of 11

“Whoever is feeding you these claims are either badly misinformed or deliberately leading you astray to peddle their fantasies.”

↑

Jacob Bliss’s words · not counted

Black-and-White Fallacy · “Whoever is feeding you these claims are either badly misinformed or deliberately leading you astray to peddle their fantasies.”Why ›

Presents only two possible explanations for the claims (misinformed or deliberately deceptive), ignoring that they could be accurate.

Only the words each finding rests on are shown here. Read the original ↗ · Open the full analysis →

↑ Back to the results

Analyzed 2026-10-23 04:25 UTC. Articles are sometimes updated after publication — if a quote here isn't in the current version, the piece has changed since.

Analyzed automatically with Semblen's fine-tuned model. These are rhetorical techniques, not political tilt — and finding one is not a claim that the article is false. Findings include language the outlet is quoting rather than asserting: we flag techniques wherever they appear, so check each quote against the original. The model has known false positives on strong-but-legitimate language, so treat each finding as a prompt to read closely, not a verdict. How articles are chosen →