Then-U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard (center), FBI Director Kash Patel (left) and CIA Director John Ratcliffe attend a House Intelligence Committee hearing on worldwide threats on Capitol Hill in Washington in March. | REUTERS
Jul 20, 2026
As the White House keeps roiling the topmost organization in the American espionage hierarchy, questions have resurfaced that date back to the creation of the nearly quarter-century-old Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Do we need it all or could we get rid of it? Should it be large or small? Should it be superior or auxiliary to the 18 other spy agencies of the United States? And how exactly can we assure that any Director of National Intelligence doesn’t deploy the office’s prodigious snooping powers to play politics instead of saving American lives by foreseeing the next national-security disaster?
The ongoing turmoil at ODNI is the inevitable consequence of Donald Trump’s approach to the intelligence community. Especially in his second term, the president has chosen people to serve as DNI who are blatantly unqualified in terms of national-security expertise but who seem willing if not eager to wield their power to indulge Trump’s personal grievances and obsessions.
In a time of both misinformation and too much information,
quality journalism is more crucial than ever.
By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.
SUBSCRIBE NOW
