Japan is undertaking a significant transformation of its national security architecture by establishing its first centralized intelligence agency since the end of the Second World War. Led by Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, the proposed reforms will create a National Intelligence Council and a National Intelligence Bureau to improve the coordination of intelligence collection, analysis, and strategic decision-making. After nearly eight decades of relying on a fragmented intelligence system, Japan has concluded that the evolving security environment requires a more integrated and effective intelligence structure. This reform marks a major shift in Japan’s national security policy, with important implications not only for its domestic security but also for regional stability and strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific.
The drivers of intelligence centralization
Japan’s decision to reform its intelligence system is primarily driven by the increasingly challenging security environment in East Asia, marked by growing threats from China, Russia, and North Korea. The Japanese government has described the current security situation as the most severe since the end of the Second World War, highlighting the need for stronger intelligence coordination and national security capabilities.
For decades, Japan’s post-war legal and institutional constraints limited the development of a centralized foreign intelligence capability, leaving gaps that foreign intelligence services could exploit. One recent example involved a Russian military intelligence network* that reportedly operated from an office in the Aeroflot airline building, just a 10-minute walk from Japan’s National Police Agency. The network allegedly used logistics companies, including Proco Air, to transport restricted Japanese components through third countries such as Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan before they eventually reached Russia’s defence industry. At the same time, Japan has faced a range of other security challenges, including cyberattacks, foreign influence operations, attempts to interfere in democratic processes, and economic coercion linked to China.
In response, Tokyo is establishing a centralized intelligence structure to improve the coordination of intelligence collection and analysis, provide integrated assessments to the Prime Minister, and strengthen the country’s ability to respond to emerging national security threats.
Significance to National Security
Japan’s intelligence reforms mark a significant shift in how the country understands comprehensive national power. Intelligence collection and analysis are increasingly being treated as central instruments of statecraft, alongside diplomacy and military capability, as reflected in Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s policy agenda. The proposed National Intelligence Agency will be led by a parliamentary vice minister, giving it a level of institutional importance comparable to the National Security Secretariat. Oversight will be provided by a National Intelligence Council chaired by the Prime Minister and composed of senior Cabinet members, including the ministers responsible for foreign affairs, defence, finance, and justice. Together, these reforms are intended to place intelligence at the centre of Japan’s national security decision-making and strengthen the government’s ability to coordinate intelligence across ministries in response to an increasingly complex security environment.
These intelligence reforms form part of a broader legislative agenda to strengthen Japan’s national security. Alongside the creation of new intelligence institutions, the Japanese government is considering comprehensive Anti-Spy Law and a Foreign Agents Registration System to improve its ability to identify and respond to foreign interference.
The proposed framework draws on legislation such as the United States’ Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and the United Kingdom’s Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS), both of which seek to increase transparency regarding activities carried out on behalf of foreign governments.
While the U.S. model applies broadly to individuals and organizations acting for foreign principals, including some private companies and state-owned media, the U.K. framework focuses more specifically on activities directed by foreign governments. The scope of Japan’s legislation will therefore be closely watched, as it will need to balance stronger national security measures with the protection of legitimate international business, academic collaboration, and diplomatic engagement.
Implications for Asia-Pacific security and the world
Japan’s intelligence reforms are likely to have important implications for the regional and international security environment. By strengthening its intelligence coordination and institutional capacity, Japan is positioning itself as a more capable and trusted security partner for like-minded countries. These include the Five Eyes members such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. A more integrated intelligence system is expected to enhance intelligence sharing, support closer defence and technology cooperation, and strengthen Japan’s contribution to maintaining security and stability in the Indo-Pacific.
At the same time, these reforms are likely to influence regional strategic competition. Japan’s intelligence reforms, together with its broader efforts to increase defence spending, expand military capabilities, and ease restrictions on defence exports, may be viewed by China as a strengthening of Japan’s strategic alignment with Western partners. This could contribute to heightened geopolitical tensions and encourage greater military and diplomatic competition in the Indo-Pacific. As a result, Japan’s intelligence reforms are likely to shape not only its own national security but also the evolving regional security architecture.
Overcoming fragmentation, building alliances, and ensuring oversight
The ongoing process of establishing the new National Intelligence Agency offers profound lessons for both Japan and the international community regarding modern statecraft.
First, Japan’s reforms highlight the strategic risks of a fragmented intelligence system. For many years, intelligence responsibilities were spread across multiple government institutions, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs responsible for diplomatic intelligence, the Ministry of Defense for military intelligence, and law enforcement agencies for domestic security. Although the Cabinet Intelligence and Research Office (CIRO) was responsible for coordinating intelligence, it had limited authority to direct information sharing and cooperation across government. As security threats became increasingly interconnected, this fragmented structure made it more difficult to develop a comprehensive understanding of emerging risks and respond effectively. Japan’s reforms therefore reflect the recognition that effective intelligence depends not only on collecting information, but also on integrating and coordinating it across factions.
Second, Japan’s reforms demonstrate that developing effective intelligence capabilities in the twenty-first century requires close international cooperation. Rather than relying solely on domestic expertise, Japan has worked with trusted partners to strengthen its intelligence system and adopt international best practices. The United States has provided expertise in areas such as cybersecurity and countering economic espionage, Australia has shared experience on intelligence coordination and institutional organization, and Germany has contributed lessons on intelligence-sharing arrangements. This collaborative approach illustrates how partnerships can accelerate intelligence reform while strengthening broader security cooperation among like-minded countries.
Finally, Japan’s reforms highlight the importance of balancing national security with the protection of democratic values and civil liberties. During parliamentary debates, members of the opposition raised concerns that expanding intelligence and surveillance powers could affect privacy rights and political neutrality. These discussions have drawn attention to the oversight mechanisms adopted by other democratic countries. For example, the United States introduced reforms to strengthen oversight of intelligence activities following the Snowden disclosures, the United Kingdom requires certain intrusive intelligence activities to receive both ministerial and judicial approval through its ‘double lock’ system, and Germany maintains strong legal protections for individual privacy based on its historical experience. As Japan continues to reform its intelligence system, establishing effective parliamentary oversight, accountability, and public confidence will be essential to ensuring that stronger intelligence capabilities enhance national security while remaining consistent with democratic principles and the rule of law.
Conclusion
Japan’s decision to establish a centralized intelligence agency for the first time since the end of the Second World War marks a significant turning point in its national security policy. Driven by an increasingly complex regional security environment and growing concerns over espionage, cyber threats, and foreign interference, Japan is reshaping its intelligence architecture to improve coordination, strengthen national resilience, and enhance strategic decision-making. By addressing institutional fragmentation, drawing on the experience of trusted international partners, and introducing new legal measures to counter espionage and foreign interference, Japan is positioning intelligence as a central element of its national security strategy. The long-term success of these reforms, however, will depend not only on strengthening intelligence capabilities but also on ensuring effective democratic oversight, accountability, and public trust so that national security is reinforced while protecting the rights and values of a democratic society.
*Russian Military Intelligence Network is a secret unit of the Main Directorate of the General Staff (formerly GRU), known as the 20th Directorate.
