Ana Montes spied on behalf of communist Cuba for 17 years. A new book by former FBI agent Peter Lapp discusses how Montes was able to carry out as a dangerous insider for nearly two decades, and his own career journey with the FBI. In our interview, we discuss how the book outlines loyalties “from both sides of the equation,” and what took one person down a path to protecting and defending America’s interest, and how another chose to betray her country. Montes was recently released from prison, making it a timely discussion as those in national security continue to study what makes an insider.
Lindy Kyzer:
Hi, this is Lindy Kyzer with ClearanceJobs.com, and welcome. Today, I’m very excited to be talking with Peter Lapp. He is a retired FBI special agent currently with P.J. Lapp Consulting. Does a lot in the counterintelligence, inside risk management profession, has had a great career with the FBI, but now continues to give back to the community in a lot of different ways. He’s here today to talk about his new book, the Queen of Cuba: An FBI Agent’s Insider Account of the Spy Who Evaded Detection for 17 Years. So thank you so much for chatting with me today.
Peter Lapp:
Thanks for having me, Lindy, I appreciate it.
Lindy Kyzer:
I kind of want to talk about, obviously, the book, as we get started here. Certainly interesting. I did read it, you can order your copy now or find it wherever you buy your books. But it was very interesting to read about the story. I have to say, I kind of heard the Ana Montes story at some point, probably through some kind of insider threat training program that I was a part of. But I did not know any of the ins and outs of her story. So kind of talk about why it’s relevant for somebody in the cleared community to know, and what prompted you to write about it?
Peter Lapp:
I think, as you’ve talked about, it’s part of many annual security training, specifically insider threat training that the government does for cleared individuals. I tried to write the book to a much more broader audience than that. I wanted folks that were interested in the true crime genre, the espionage genre to buy into it, and read into it, and learn something from it.
But there’s certainly things that our cleared community can take away from this, in our insider threat programs within goverments or industry can take away from that. It’s the most telling story of this story that’s ever been told, the details of which that I’ve been able to reveal, that have gone through the government’s pre-publication process, as all clearance holders must do, it’s the most detailed telling of the story that’s ever been told.
Lindy Kyzer:
And I love that, and I think that kind of relates to how you framed the book, which was really interesting to me. So I see a lot of kind of insider threat or insider risk books, and they would not be nearly as interesting as this one is. So I feel like if you are in the cleared community, there’s going to be nuggets in there that you’re going to capture that are going to be applicable, that are going to be relevant, even if you’re far outside the national security or cleared community, it’s an interesting read, it’s a good read. And I like how you juxtaposed your career, and how you got started with the FBI. I love a good career origin story, I love to learn how people get in this big national security ecosystem that we’re a part of.
So maybe talk about that, because I think that makes the book really readable and really relevant, because you kind of go back and forth, chapter to chapter, your start, your career, and then we learn about … Again, I love how you dove into her background, and you’re right. You find nuggets of information, I think, probably because you were an agent on the case, you just knew her story, her family, her relatives, that kind of comes out in the reading of the story. So talk about how you frame that, your story and her story all coming together her.
Peter Lapp:
So this is not a memoir, and it was never meant to be a memoir. This is about her. Kelly Kennedy, my co-writer, who is phenomenal, brilliant, great writer, really pushed me to open up and be vulnerable about me, and talk about what made me me. Because the book is written from my point of view, her encouragement was to, “Share with the reader what got you to this point.” And I do like the dual narrative aspect to it. You see, I think, loyalty, from both sides of the equation. You see this dedication, this commitment from both sides. From my perspective, and my career, and my life, my values, and hers. And people will read this, and they’re going to draw a hard opinion about whether my values and my beliefs are the right way, or hers. And that’s something that the reader’s going to have to decide. Hopefully the clearance-holders are going to side with my perspective, but I’m understanding that she has fans, and there are people that think that the government is evil and she’s a hero. So that’s going to be an interesting review, shall we say, as the book gets out there.
Lindy Kyzer:
Goodness, that’s certainly interesting. From an insider threat case study, I thought it was fascinating. Again, even if you’re listening to this, watching this, you’ve never heard what an insider risk is, I think the book is written so that it will be very relevant and very interesting regardless.
It’s like your title focused on, her bona fides, she was the queen of Cuba. So within this national security community, she had a lot of clout, she was known as an expert in her area. And then I find it very interesting, the whole time, that she was very valued in her community as an expert. She was also telling everything to Cuba, so compromising the trust, the loyalty of her country.
I think we kind of think about insiders, people who are sloppy, people who are making mistakes, who aren’t the best. In many ways, your book kind of outlines how Anna was considered the best in her craft, but then also doing really awful, I mean, in my point of view, evil things, and compromising national security. So do you think that made her a harder-to-spot insider risk, was she kind of above scrutiny? And maybe what is the lesson learned there for folks who are looking for insider risks, national security. Are we doing something wrong by kind of taking people at the top out of the equation?
Peter Lapp:
Well, absolutely. And I think if you compare Hanssen and Ames, Hanssen was a guy who professionally wasn’t well-regarded. People didn’t like working for him, had this really dour demeanor. Ames was a drunk. So those things, in comparison to the amount of time they spied, similar to Montes in terms of the almost two decades for all three of them. Ana’s reputation as a queen, as a expert, in my opinion really insulated her, acted as kind of a force-field against any kind of security blips that would come up.
And she did have little issues from time to time. I mean, very much in the beginning of her career, not single-issue eliminator … issues that could be interpreted as innocent. But that reputation of the queen, and her accomplishments, and her awards and accolades really helped insulate her from security. And I think the message there is a bias. Security people, if they come across a superstar, do they have an ability to independently look at that individual objectively, or do they say, “Wow, now this person is prolific, they’ve received awards from the Director of Central Intelligence,” all these kind of accolades that she received, were unable to analyze what they’re seeing as data points objectively without being biased by the reputation, good or bad.
Lindy Kyzer:
I find it so ironic that, yeah, she was considered the expert on Cuba. That actually was fantastic for her spying career, because anybody who had insight or wanted to get into that process was probably reaching out and contacting her. So it gave her a scope even outside of her lane with the DIA that she built upon because of her expertise.
Peter Lapp:
Yeah, and the more she accomplished professionally, from what she told us, and it makes sense, the more doors that were open for her, the more meetings she got invited to. So the better she was at her day job, the more access it provided her for her moonlighting job. So the two worked hand-in-hand in many ways.
Yeah, but she’s a very intelligent woman. Very bright. Common-sense wise, I think, doesn’t have a lot of common sense in my opinion. But very intelligent, and a sharp, sharp analyst. And I think the tragedy in all this, one of them is if she had just chosen to use that talent and academic skills and intelligence for good, I think she could’ve done so much good for the world. But she chose this path that, my personal opinion, I think it was a waste of her time and a waste of 39 years of her life.
Lindy Kyzer:
It’ll be interesting to see over the next coming years what we learn and what comes out of it. I know she was recently released from prison, I believe, and then I think one of the statements that she was quoted as saying was, “I as a person am irrelevant. I don’t matter. There are serious problems in our global homeland that require attention.” So she’s trying to not, maybe, discuss her case, and you probably know more or have read more about what she’s said since she was released than that. It’s interesting, I haven’t seen anything where she apologized for what she’s done, or if she has any regrets. And she’s still pointing to us being in a troubling geopolitical climate and being fairly anti-US in her sentiments that she’s released.
Peter Lapp:
That’s accurate, yeah. No remorse, no regret that she’s publicly said. That’s been her only statement, and then, frankly, it may be her only statement. It’s kind of interesting, with that statement she released a current photo. So she wants to fly under the radar and live this anonymous life and rebuild her life, “But just in case you’re wondering, here’s a current photo of me.” It’s the dichotomy of Ana Montes, where she’s able to argue out of both sides of her mouth in some cases. We’ll see. I think she’s very interested and still passionate about … Yeah, she’s anti-American. I don’t think there’s any other way of putting it. I wouldn’t say she’s pro-Cuba, I wouldn’t call her a socialist, or a Marxist, or a communist. She’s really more anti-American in my opinion. And that’s something that I think we have to continue to grapple with in 2023, this kind of anti-American sentiment that comes from all sorts of sides, if you will.
Lindy Kyzer:
So Allegiance to the United States is an adjudicative criteria, and we frequently get pushback over our clearance jobs, like, “In this political climate, why would you require allegiance to the United States in order to obtain security clearance?” I do think the Montes case is kind of an example of how that can go wrong. If you’re not able to affirm loyalty … And loyalty does not mean agreement, my any means. And I think people very much knew that she had opinions that were contrary to the US government. People across the IC do, and that’s not a thing. But can you say, “Despite all of our differences, can I align myself and pledge allegiance to the United States?” I think this case makes the case for why that is a relevant adjudicative guideline in the clearance process.
Peter Lapp:
Oh, I totally agree. And this is not a political case. Ana was motivated because of Reagan’s policy in Nicaragua, with, you think back to Iran-Contra, controversial foreign policy, Reagan was the president. I’m assuming she didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan.
You can argue that she did as much damage to national security in a Reagan-Bush I administration than she did during Bill Clinton’s administration. So not a political debate, not a political discussion, but a policy. Her opinion and motivation was policy-driven, US policy with regards to, in her mind, this interventionalism that the United States has done over decades. And there’s arguments for and against that in some areas, but I think that her actions speak for themselves and they were more policy-driven, definitely not political.
Lindy Kyzer:
Yeah. Well, so talk again a little bit about the timing of the book, with her being released from prison. Did that factor in for you, knowing … Like how did you come across the timing of saying, “Hey, this is the time for me,” personally or professionally, to tell this story.
Peter Lapp:
So I retired from the FBI just before the pandemic and went to work in industry. I just was looking for something different professionally and trying to figure out what Pete 3.0 was going to look like and do as a career. And I decided to go out on my own and do consulting for insider threat. I thought I had some bona fides, and I had this case. Maybe I should write a book about the case that would be a nice business card. Read this book, and then I can talk to you about your program, and give you some advice and counsel on where you should go depending on how far you want to grow your program.
The book took on a life of its own. It took, from the time we started writing until its release is two years. And it’s been a journey, writing it has been … It was a really neat way to relive the investigation. Without question, that 10-month period, when I got asked to join the investigation as the co-case agent to her arrest was 10 months, and it was absolutely the highlight of my career. There’s no cooler case, in my opinion, that you can work than a real-live spy, and trying to figure out if you can catch them in the act of committing espionage. There’s no bigger thrill professionally as an FBI agent.
But I haven’t worked political corruption cases or terrorism cases, maybe they’re more exhilarating. So we’ll see where this goes in terms of business, consulting, if you will. I’m actually happy with it being done, and presenting it to the reader, and saying, “Here you go.” The fact that there are details that have never been released is really exciting for me. I think that the fullness of this story, the individuals that were former Cuban intelligence officers who provided intelligence that led to all of this, and telling some of their story is just so exciting for me. I just can’t wait for the reader to read the chapter called Runaway, where we talk about the two guys that escaped on a raft. It’s cool and dramatic, so hopefully it’s interesting.
Lindy Kyzer:
It was super interesting. And that’s what I did love, the tradecraft that’s in there. I love stories, so stories are my thing, so how the different inter-weaving stories, between Montes’s family and between the intelligence community, different individuals there. I love when you got to the part where you were casing her apartment. Just the little things that you know are a part of this process, but you don’t think about, like having to figure out when the neighbors are home and when they’re not, and how do you actually get into somebody’s apartment? And just all of those different things I think are super fascinating to read about, and makes it realize the importance factor, and also the cool factor of working in national security careers. Which, again, I love how you told your story about how you got invested in this career, and got you some really cool, amazing things, giving back to our country. I love that.
Peter Lapp:
I think the version from the first-person, I was there in the room perspective … And just to be clear, this was a team effort. We had a lot of folks. This success has 1000 fathers, and I represent all those folks, not just the FBI, but other organizations, and I did give them credit in the book.
A journalist writing about this, and that has happened, glosses over what I’m feeling when I’m turning the key, and walking in the room, and being somewhere that I’m legally allowed to be in, but if we get caught, oh shit, we’re in big trouble. Hopefully I can say that. It’s exhilarating, and I wanted to really expose the readers to what I was feeling in those moments that they’re so rare, getting a glimpse into how do we do that, within the degree that we’re allowed to talk about, but we’re not feeling as I’m doing that. And the stress and challenge and exhilaration … I’ve kicked in doors here in there, as an agent and as a police officer, and there was nothing as cool as sneaking in legally, and turning the key, and going into someone’s apartment, and sneaking around like a cat burglar. That was pretty cool. You can’t top that, for me.
Lindy Kyzer:
I love it when someone who is in this community can convey stories on this community in a way that is relevant to people outside the community. How many times did I say community, did any of that make sense? But you learn a lot about the intelligence community process by reading this book. You learn a lot about the court system and how you can … agan, the legal frameworks you hae to go through to do this. And it makes me feel better, and good about our country to know, “Hey, we want to be investigating espionage and cases.” As much as we hate the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy serves a function, and there is a process that you go through. And even the inter-agency work between the FBI and the DIA, we all know that that gets a little complicated. But there are frameworks and steps in place, and then the culmination of that is catching someone who needed to be caught, and who needed to pay a price for what they’d done to the country. Again, you get all that here.
And again, if you’re outside and have never heard about espionage, or spies, or tradecraft, or any of that, you’re going to get a lot of information. And if you’re deep into the weeds of it, it’s going to come alive to you and be like, “Oh, this is why we do what we do.”
Peter Lapp:
The other thing I wanted to do is, frankly, just to be candid, FBI and FBI agents have been crucified, almost, over the past X amount of years, and I wanted to humanize what a typical FBI agent is and does. And I don’t say that I represent every single, 35,000 employees, but I wanted to kind of, in a general way, say, “Look, these are folks that they’re working these kind of investigations, and at the same time, they’re trying to keep a marriage together, they’re trying to start a family, they’re trying to be good neighbors, they’re trying to have time to cut their grass. Oh, and then in the meantime, they’re chasing spies and terrorists, and trying to keep our country safe and our community safe.”
I shared mistakes that we made in the book, because I wanted to be real, and I wanted to be genuine and authentic and say, “This was a screw-up, and that was a screw-up,” and we own it, but this isn’t Hollywood. We’re human beings that make mistakes and we’re not perfect, but we’re all trying to do the right thing in the right way, and I hope that that message comes out through the final book.
Lindy Kyzer:
I think it does. Again, I definitely commend it. Queen of Cuba: An FBI Agent’s Insider Account of the Spy Who Evaded Detection for 17 Years, available to order now. Peter Lapp, thank you so much for being on the show and chatting about it, and thank you for writing this book. I do think, again, if it’s kind of a give-back to the FBI community, I commend that and love that, because it does show that this is important work, and great work that’s being done, and appreciate what you’ve done.
Peter Lapp:
Thanks, Lindy. I appreciate it, great talking to you.
