Who is Adam Zarnowski and what is his role in NSA audits?

1. Who Zarnowski says he is and where the story began

Public reporting identifies Adam Zarnowski as a self‑described ex‑CIA paramilitary operative and author of a book called Jörmungandr; those biographical claims and his account of participating in an NSA forensic audit were published in a Substack post headlined “Ex‑CIA Whistleblower: ‘The NSA Audited The 2024 Election, Kamala Harris Won’” on This Will Hold ^[1]. The post quotes Zarnowski asserting personal involvement in an “NSA‑authorized forensic audit” and links his broader work in human‑trafficking investigations to the alleged cover‑up ^[1].

2. What Zarnowski claims about the NSA audit

Zarnowski’s central assertion is that an NSA‑approved forensic audit of the 2024 election was conducted and then buried, and that audit’s results would have shown Harris winning by a large margin—claims he has said he is prepared to testify about in court, according to the Substack article ^[1]. Follow‑up pieces and Zarnowski’s own writings frame the audit as pivotal to his narrative connecting election results to transnational organized crime and trafficking networks ^{[4] [1]}.

3. Verification, counterreports, and fact‑checking

Multiple independent reviewers, including Snopes and investigative writers who traced the reporting, found no public documents, internal memos, audit logs, or reporting from credible news organizations to substantiate an NSA audit of the kind described; Snopes explicitly noted it could not independently verify Zarnowski’s claimed CIA employment and found no evidence the audit occurred ^{[3] [2]}. Analysts and thread investigators also highlighted that Zarnowski is the lone person asserting involvement with no co‑whistleblowers, no chain of custody, and no corroborating documents—factors that weaken the evidentiary weight of his claims ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Credibility questions and alternate readings

Critics argue Zarnowski’s narrative displays hallmarks of disinformation performance: unverifiable claims, speculative language in his own book about the audit, and mixing legitimate concerns about election infrastructure with sensational conclusions without producing receipts ^{[2] [7]}. At the same time, commentators concede the underlying policy issues—vulnerable vendors, obscure technical systems like ECO‑1188, and gaps in oversight—are real concerns that make the broader story plausible in outline even if the specific buried‑audit claim is unproven ^{[8] [7]}.

5. Institutional silence and unanswered questions

The NSA and related agencies did not publicly confirm the existence of any such forensic audit when fact‑checkers sought comment, and This Will Hold and Zarnowski did not provide verifiable documentation in response to queries, leaving the central allegation in limbo and dependent on Zarnowski’s unsupported testimony ^{[3] [1]}. Reporting therefore leaves two clear facts: Zarnowski publicly claims a central role in an NSA audit, and there is currently no independent, credible evidence that the audit took place or that his employment history is verifiable ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Why this matters and how to read future claims

The episode illustrates how an individual with plausible‑sounding credentials and a narrative that mixes genuine technical vulnerabilities with sweeping conspiratorial conclusions can create a story that spreads rapidly; investigative threads and fact‑checkers urge caution, demand documents and corroboration, and recommend focusing on verifiable audit logs and oversight reforms rather than accepting lone unverified whistleblower claims ^{[6] [3]}. Absent primary evidence—documents, co‑witnesses, or agency confirmation—the responsible journalistic posture is to treat Zarnowski’s role in any NSA audit as an unverified allegation, while continuing to report on systemic election security issues that independent analysts identify as real ^{[2] [8]}.