This section introduces the concept and history of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) and the process of its incorporation into U.S. national strategy. The U.S. has developed a systematic and dynamically adaptive OSINT strategic framework. Scholars domestically and abroad have explored the integration of artificial intelligence with OSINT from ethical, legal, and societal impact perspectives, as well as the evolutionary logic, capacity-building, and international implications of the U.S. OSINT strategy. However, existing research lacks a systematic analysis of the internal logic, capacity-building, international impact, and constraints of the U.S. OSINT strategy. This paper constructs a comprehensive analytical framework of "evolution-development—capacity-building—external effects—constraints," aiming to deconstruct the U.S. OSINT strategy holistically and provide theoretical support and practical references for China's relevant policy formulation.

I. The Evolution and Logic of the U.S. OSINT Strategy

The chapter on the evolution and logic of the U.S. OSINT strategy elaborates on its formation, development, and underlying rationale. The U.S. OSINT strategy originated in 1941 and gradually took shape and adapted in response to changes in the national security environment, technological advancements, and the demands of great-power competition. OSINT has evolved from a supplementary tool into a strategic resource supporting national security and great-power competition. The progression of the U.S. OSINT strategy reflects a dual response to national security needs and great-power competition, balancing technological empowerment with risk governance to build a continuously evolving capability system. Its development follows a dual logic of technological empowerment and risk governance, emphasizing the application of AI and other technologies in OSINT while strengthening risk management. A third logic is manifested in the construction of an integrated, multi-stakeholder collaborative network, fostering public-private partnerships domestically and deepening international cooperation externally. The U.S. OSINT strategy exhibits an offensive-defensive logic, serving both national security and great-power competition while leveraging a synergistic network of domestic and international actors to build comprehensive advantages.

II. The Practice and Capacity-Building of the U.S. OSINT Strategy

The practice and capacity-building of the U.S. OSINT strategy focus on three pillars—technology, institutions, and talent—constructing a holistic capability system to support OSINT operations through systematic integration and dynamic adaptation. In terms of technological applications, the U.S. centers on AI, extends to geospatial technologies, and links them through integrated collaborative management platforms to enhance OSINT efficiency. AI comprehensively empowers OSINT operations, geospatial technologies expand situational awareness, and integrated platforms streamline workflows. Institutionally, the U.S. has established a network comprising top-level agencies for strategic direction, specialized agencies for execution, and private-sector entities as supplements, providing organizational support for OSINT implementation. In talent development, the U.S. has built a multi-tiered system encompassing higher education, professional certification, and collaborative training to systematically advance OSINT expertise, ensuring sustained intellectual support for intelligence work. Through this trinity of technology, institutions, and talent, the U.S. has formed a relatively complete OSINT implementation framework, reflecting its high regard for OSINT's strategic value and its strategic orientation of maintaining global intelligence superiority through top-level design and systematic investment.

III. The External Effects of the U.S. OSINT Strategy

The U.S. OSINT strategy has profound global implications, including the erosion of data sovereignty and privacy protection, the intensification of global intelligence competition, and new challenges to international rules and order. Leveraging technological superiority, the U.S. systematically extracts global data, undermining other nations' data sovereignty and threatening citizens' privacy rights. Through the CLOUD Act and data-sharing agreements with tech firms, it bypasses frameworks like the EU's GDPR, exacerbating global digital divides. Its OSINT integration capabilities pose systemic threats to global privacy, with differential protections contradicting the universality of privacy rights. The demonstration effect of the U.S. OSINT strategy has spurred a global race to enhance data protection capabilities, triggering technological catch-up and countermeasure competitions. By embedding OSINT deeply into great-power rivalry and geopolitical strategies, the U.S. has catalyzed international rule disputes, inflamed bilateral and multilateral diplomatic frictions, and introduced new conflict triggers and risk variables into the global security environment. Its double standards in data governance provoke international rule conflicts, while its use of OSINT as a political tool strains diplomatic relations, challenging global diplomatic order and international trust. OSINT has thus evolved from a traditional intelligence-gathering tool into a key variable influencing global strategic balance and international security order.

IV. Constraints on the U.S. OSINT Strategy

The advancement of the U.S. OSINT strategy faces multiple constraints, including technological dependence, deteriorating information ecosystems, legal restrictions, strategic competitor rivalry, organizational coordination inefficiencies, and resource allocation limitations. Technological reliance creates a dual dynamic of capability and risk in the U.S. OSINT system, while information ecosystem degradation increases verification costs and difficulties. Shifts in global digital governance rules and competitors' enhanced OSINT capabilities constrain the U.S.'s operational flexibility and data access. Fragmented organizational coordination and misaligned budget allocations hinder systematic integration and strategic sustainability. These overlapping constraints amplify their impact, fundamentally limiting the efficacy and sustainable progression of the U.S. OSINT strategy.

V. Conclusion

The evolution of the U.S. OSINT strategy reflects the intelligence community's adaptation to national security environments and technological innovation, with OSINT transforming from a supplementary resource into a core asset in great-power competition. By redefining intelligence operations through technology, organization, and talent development, the U.S. has reshaped the global intelligence landscape. This transformation has spurred worldwide recognition of OSINT's value and capacity-building efforts but has also introduced challenges such as technological monopolies, rule competition, and novel security risks, posing threats to the global intelligence ecosystem and governance framework. China should maintain strategic composure and adopt responsive measures, including embracing a holistic national security perspective, refining legal frameworks, strengthening technological innovation, and enhancing international cooperation.