After Trump's Director Of National Intelligence Pick, Knives Are Out For The Whole Office

President Donald Trump’s selection of Bill Pulte to head the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has done more than cause a stir on the Hill — it’s bolstered skeptics of the agency who want to cut it back or maybe even get rid of it altogether.

“A lot of people whose judgment I respect tell me that it's unnecessary,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said after POLITICO asked if he’d support eliminating ODNI. “And if that's the case, and we don't need it, and it's just holding us back, and we can save money — sure.”

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) when asked the same question, answered, “I think they're talking about reducing some of the bureaucracy there. Taking a good look at that, taking a hard look at that's a good idea.”

ODNI was established to address the intelligence failures leading up to the 9/11 attacks by bridging information silos across more than a dozen intelligence agencies. But the office has long faced questions about its mission and size — and some other spy agencies have chafed at having to report to the director. As a result, its influence has waxed and waned with its chief’s personal rapport with the White House.

Outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was herself sidelined on major foreign policy issues by Trump, including military operations in Iran and Venezuela. And even she recognized the need for reform at ODNI, at one point touting her work to cut some 40 percent of the agency’s staff.

Lately the push for slashing the agency gained new momentum. Asked about it Monday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters, “there is clearly an interest in downsizing and reevaluating the value that ODNI brings.”

Trump told The Wall Street Journal last week he’d told Pulte the ODNI was "unnecessary and/or too big.” Senate Intelligence Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) concurred, writing on X, “I’ve long advocated for downsizing, if not outright eliminating, this bureaucracy.”

Cotton didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Asked about the notion of shuttering ODNI, Gabbard spokesperson Olivia Coleman referred POLITICO to comments from Trump late last month at a cabinet meeting following Gabbard’s announcement she would be stepping down at the end of June.

Gabbard “dramatically reformed the office of Director of National Intelligence, cutting the staff by 40%,” Trump said then. “Tulsi has worked tirelessly to restore trust and focus, in intelligence and with the intelligence community.”

An ODNI official, granted anonymity to share details of internal office dynamics, said Gabbard herself was not opposed to seeing the office she headed vanish. “Since day one, DNI Gabbard said she'd be willing to be the last Director of National Intelligence if that's what was needed,” the official said.

A spokesperson for House Intelligence Chair Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), while calling ODNI “bloated,” defended the office as “the only IC entity rooting out weaponization, holding wrongdoers accountable, and increasing transparency for the American people.”

Democrats are broadly defending ODNI despite their gripes. House Intelligence Committee ranking member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) told POLITICO ODNI was “probably overly large” but that Pulte’s “catastrophic” appointment shouldn’t spur a knee-jerk shuttering of the agency.

He highlighted the National Counterterrrorism Center — which is housed at the ODNI — as an example of what not to cut. “We are talking about the safety of the American people,” he said.

Senate Intelligence Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) similarly said questions about whether ODNI had “grown too large” were legitimate but added, “before Congress starts dismantling structures that were created to address failures identified after 9/11, we ought to have a serious, fact-based discussion about what problem we're trying to solve.”

Other Senate Intel Dems offered a forceful defense of the agency. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) argued Trump appointed Pulte “to fire professional staff who disagree with his mission of politicizing intelligence and weaponizing surveillance against his critics.” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said “ODNI is vital to keeping our country safe from threats at home and abroad.” Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) said eliminating ODNI was “unserious.”

The White House and CIA didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Larry Pfeiffer, who was among the first employees of ODNI, told POLITICO that the agency faced headwinds from its inception. He said some CIA staff saw it as taking away from their authority, and “have never given up that fight even 20 years later.”

Still, he said, getting rid of ODNI and returning detailees from 18 intelligence agencies back to their home offices was likely to create issues of its own.

“If you abolish and return those billets to the agencies, in very short order you're going to have to create something that’s going to look and sound and smell like a DNI,” he said.

Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO’s Nationa l Security Daily newsletter.