Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What were Adam Zarnowski's roles at the CIA and NSA?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows Adam Zarnowski has been publicly described in places as a “former CIA paramilitary operations officer” and as someone who says he’s assisted or received help from intelligence officers, but independent verification of CIA employment or any participation in an NSA audit is lacking (Snopes summarized inability to verify) [1] [2]. Analysts and fact‑checkers treat his public persona and the audit claim with skepticism: no corroborating documents, co‑whistleblowers, or credible news reporting have surfaced [3] [4].
1. Who he’s presented as: a paramilitary label that appears online
Multiple outlets and profiles identify Zarnowski as a “former CIA paramilitary operations officer” or “ex‑CIA paramilitary,” including LinkedIn references cited in reporting; that label is real as a CIA occupational category but is part of the public claims about his background rather than independently documented employment records in the reporting reviewed [5] [3] [1].
2. What he’s claimed to have done: the NSA audit allegation
A viral Substack story and follow‑on pieces quote Zarnowski as saying he was “personally involved in an NSA‑authorized forensic audit of the 2024 election” and that the audit produced a contrary result — an assertion that sparked wide circulation and pushback [2] [1].
3. Verification gap: fact‑checkers could not corroborate CIA or NSA roles
Snopes explicitly states it “could not independently verify Zarnowski’s employment with the CIA or his alleged involvement in such an NSA audit,” and notes the lack of confirmation from the agencies or corroborating documents or reputable news outlets [1] [2]. HackingButLegal’s case study likewise concludes his LinkedIn and public persona appear constructed to create authority, and that no credible evidence supports the audit claim [3].
4. Expert and analyst reactions: plausibility vs. proof
Security analysts and commentators acknowledge plausible reasons a person with intelligence tradecraft might be involved in certain investigations, but emphasize the leap from plausibility to a buried, agency‑level audit that overturns an election is unsupported. Threads and analyst posts summarize that Zarnowski “alone holds all the cards” with no documents or co‑witnesses, making the central claim speculative [4] [6].
5. Other public activity and stated interests: trafficking investigations and outreach
Earlier interviews and profiles portray Zarnowski as a policy expert or activist on human‑trafficking issues and say he has reported getting assistance from intelligence community members; those accounts indicate he’s been involved publicly in trafficking investigations and policymaking circles, but do not validate the CIA/NSA employment or audit assertions [7] [3].
6. How journalists and fact‑checkers treated the wider story
Reporting frames the episode as a case study in disinformation dynamics: a high‑authority personal brand (former paramilitary) + a dramatic, unverified claim (NSA audit) that travels fast online. Fact‑checkers focus on the lack of independent confirmation and the absence of documentation or corroborating testimony [1] [3].
7. Reasonable alternative interpretations supported by the sources
Sources present two principal possibilities: either Zarnowski is accurately describing prior intelligence service and participation in an audit but lacks public proof (Snopes notes intelligence agencies often neither confirm nor deny service, which complicates open verification), or his profile and claims are “strategic credentialing” meant to lend authority to an otherwise unverified narrative — HackingButLegal frames his LinkedIn as a constructed identity [1] [3].
8. What’s not found in current reporting and why that matters
Available sources do not mention any leaked audit documents, corroborating agency statements, court filings, or independent reporting that would substantiate Zarnowski’s alleged CIA employment or NSA audit role; that absence is the key reason mainstream fact‑checkers and analysts flagged the claims as unverified or speculative [2] [1].
9. Bottom line for readers
Treat public descriptions of Zarnowski as a former CIA paramilitary and of his role in an NSA audit as claims that have circulated widely but remain unverified in open reporting; credible fact‑checking and analyst pieces conclude there is no independent confirmation and emphasize the need for documentary proof or corroborating witnesses before accepting the extraordinary audit allegation [1] [3] [4].