
Gabbard Seeks to Consolidate Her Control of President's Daily Brief
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, is moving the assembly of the president's daily intelligence brief from the C.I.A. headquarters to her own complex, according to officials briefed on the move.
The brief, a summary of intelligence and analysis about global hot spots and national security threats, is overseen and presented to the president by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. But C.I.A. officers write much of the analysis in the document and produce it, pulling together articles and graphics on the agency's classified computer systems.
Ms. Gabbard's decision comes as President Trump has openly mused to aides over time about whether the office she leads — which was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to improve interagency coordination — should continue to exist, according to two people with knowledge of his remarks. Ms. Gabbard has discussed Mr. Trump's concerns with him directly and has considered how to overhaul the office, according to one official.
The decision was announced internally on Tuesday. C.I.A. staff were told in a memo from the agency's directorate of analysis that such a move had been considered several times over the years.
The memo, which was described to The New York Times, said there was 'much to be worked out about transition timelines and our own processes.' The infrastructure to create the briefing is sizable and owned by the C.I.A. and could be difficult to move or replicate at Ms. Gabbard's office.
Moving the production of the daily brief was one of two decisions Ms. Gabbard made on Tuesday. She also ordered the National Intelligence Council to relocate to her headquarters.
The moves are part of an effort by Ms. Gabbard to shore up the role of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and ensure that she has oversight and control over two of the most important functions of her post. Critics of her agency argue that its work should be folded back into the C.I.A., whose current director is John Ratcliffe.
An official from Ms. Gabbard's office said that physically moving the daily brief was intended to speed response times to certain queries. The official said the move was meant to offer the president more 'timely and actionable' intelligence.
A White House spokesman did not respond to an email seeking comment, including about whether Mr. Trump had raised questions about whether the O.D.N.I. needed to continue as an agency. The C.I.A. declined to comment.
Former intelligence officials raised questions about the move. Beth Sanner, who oversaw the president's intelligence brief in the first Trump administration, said it would be 'a huge mistake.'
'Ultimately and ironically, it would probably reduce the O.D.N.I. role because it would separate their oversight from the C.I.A. teams doing most of the work,' Ms. Sanner said. She added, 'It would create inefficiencies and risk miscommunication and mistakes. Ironically, over time, this probably will lessen O.D.N.I.'s oversight role and give C.I.A. more control — out of sight, out of mind.'
The C.I.A. memo said that while the directorate of analysis role in supporting the daily brief would evolve, 'we will remain laser-focused on the president's and Director Ratcliffe's priorities and our core mission — generating and delivering insight with impact, free from political or personal bias.'
It is not clear how many C.I.A. personnel assigned to the P.D.B., as the brief is called, and to the National Intelligence Council will move. People familiar with the matter, who were not authorized to discuss internal concerns publicly, said a number of employees at the agency were looking for new assignments to avoid moving to Ms. Gabbard's office.
The relocation of the National Intelligence Council was reported earlier by Fox News, which also reported that Ms. Gabbard had removed the acting chair of the council, Michael Collins, and his deputy. Mr. Collins is a senior C.I.A. officer who had been detailed to the council, and current and former officials confirmed that he has been sent back to the C.I.A.
Mr. Collins is known for his expertise on China. During the Biden administration, he helped with the strategic planning that led to the C.I.A.'s China Mission Center. Mr. Ratcliffe has praised the focus on China and promised to expand those efforts.
Mr. Collins and the council had been caught up in a dispute over the truth of Mr. Trump's claim in March that a criminal gang, Tren de Aragua, is controlled by Venezuela's government. That claim is a central premise of Mr. Trump's invocation of a wartime law to deport people accused of being members of the gang to a Salvadoran prison without due process.
In February, the intelligence community circulated an assessment that reached the opposite conclusion. The administration asked the National Intelligence Council to take a second look at the available evidence, but in an April memo, intelligence agencies reaffirmed the findings contradicting Mr. Trump.
Laura Loomer, the far-right activist who has successfully lobbied the administration to fire other security officials, then attacked the National Intelligence Council on social media as 'career anti-Trump bureaucrats' who 'need to be replaced if they want to promote open borders,' posting images of Mr. Collins's résumé and an article about the council's assessment.
An official briefed on the matter denied that Mr. Collins's removal was connected to the Venezuela assessment or to Ms. Loomer.
Before the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in 2004, the C.I.A. was responsible for assembling the President's Daily Brief and overseeing the National Intelligence Council, which brings together disparate intelligence agencies to examine various issues and writes intelligence estimates and other assessments.
After the director of national intelligence took responsibility for both, the operations remained at the C.I.A.'s headquarters in Langley, Va. just outside Washington. The view was that analysts and officers working on the products would be closer to the C.I.A. analysts who drafted most of the articles. The headquarters of the director of national intelligence, known as Liberty Crossing, is a few miles away.
But an official briefed on the decision to move the P.D.B. and the National Intelligence Council to the headquarters of the director of national intelligence said it would allow Ms. Gabbard and her staff members to reshape the brief in response to questions from Mr. Trump and other policymakers.
Mr. Trump picked Ms. Gabbard for the role relatively early in the presidential transition. He has questioned whether the office needs to continue to operate and has discussed with Ms. Gabbard how to overhaul it, according to one person with knowledge of the discussions. Some observers of the intelligence community have also suggested that it may have outlived its utility, though that discussion is parallel to one about whether it has grown well past the size it was originally intended to be.
Controlling the production of the daily brief may give Ms. Gabbard a more direct line to Mr. Trump and his core circle in the West Wing.
An array of senior officials are given a version of the brief and many have a personal briefer. Those officials often send questions or requests back to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Congress gave the office oversight of the National Intelligence Council and President's Daily Brief to ensure that it evaluated information from all the spy agencies, not just the C.I.A. Ms. Gabbard's decision would put the people working on the brief closer to those responsible for overseeing the ultimate product.
Since taking the role, Ms. Gabbard has frequently sought to communicate her attentiveness to Mr. Trump's stated interests on her social media feed, including by saying that all files related to President John F. Kennedy's assassination would be immediately declassified without redactions, as the president wanted.
Tens of thousands of pages were ultimately released, including some with various people's Social Security numbers visible, prompting the White House to move to contain the fallout.
The files have yet to show anything that reveals new information about who was behind the assassination.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's Administration Has Asked Ally Serbia to Accept Deportees
President Donald Trump's administration is pushing Serbia and other Balkan nations to take in migrants deported from the US, according to people familiar with the matter. The requests to countries in the region are ongoing and part of a broader strategy to find foreign governments willing to receive migrants sent from the US, including some who originally entered under Biden-era protections, according to the people, who requested anonymity because the talks were private.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ex-Trump Aide Spells Out How Elon Musk Could Gain Ultimate Revenge On The President
Former White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin explained Wednesday why she believes tech billionaire Elon Musk could now actually 'tank Donald Trump's entire legislative agenda.' Griffin, a co-host on ABC's 'The View,' warned that Musk's vocal opposition to Trump's so-called 'big, beautiful' spending bill could sway Republicans in Congress, especially those worried about the consequences to their seats if they cross the world's richest person. Musk recently slammed the bill as a 'disgusting abomination' for how it will hike the national debt. He had previously staked his reputation on slashing federal spending in his now-ended role running Trump's unofficial Department of Government Efficiency. Trump, for now, has remained silent on Musk's criticism. Griffin, who served in the Trump administration during his first term, noted how the bill has measures on energy, border security and extends Trump's tax cuts. 'If Republicans decide, 'Oooh, we don't want to get on the wrong side of Elon,' that is what Donald Trump is banking it all on,' she continued. 'And that is kind of devastating for his administration.' 'On the flip side, those Republicans, if you're in a House district, you're like, 'I'm afraid of Donald Trump,' but Elon Musk, because of the dark money system we live in, he can come in and primary you by just pouring millions and millions into your race.' All Musk needs to do, she suggested, is 'peel off a handful of Republicans' to tip the balance of power in the House. Watch here: Critics Cackle Over Mike Johnson's Awkward Confession About Elon Musk Phone Call 'You Wussed Out': David Mamet Reveals Trump's 20-Minute Call After He Committed A MAGA Sin Critics Gasp At Trump Official's 'The Thing That Matters' Declaration
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump has demolished the liberal myth. Migrants shouldn't be treated equally
Sometimes the best policies are the ones that produce the shrillest wails from the Left. Such may be the case with Trump's latest travel ban, which by rights should spark serious soul-searching in Britain. Overnight, the President announced restrictions on the citizens of 12 countries. This was a response to the recent terror attack on Boulder, Colorado, in which an Egyptian national, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, is alleged to have thrown firebombs and sprayed burning petrol at a Jewish vigil on Sunday in support of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. Although Egypt is not on the list, Homeland Security officials said Mr Soliman was in the country illegally, having overstayed a tourist visa, but that he had applied for asylum in September 2022. So far, so Trumpian. (He took similar measures during his first term, after all, and they were repealed by Joe Biden who called them 'a stain on our national conscience'.) But then came the kicker. 'We will not let what happened in Europe happen in America,' Trump said. Ouch. If the months of Trump 2.0 have so far shifted the Overton window across the West, allowing even the likes of Sir Keir Starmer to contemplate – at least rhetorically – tackling immigration, then such a travel ban should be welcomed on these shores as well. Already, the usual suspects are accusing Trump of being 'racist'. But a glance at the range of countries on the list shows that this is not a question of race, or even religion. Rather, it is a question of homeland security, and that holds a stark lesson for Britain. A few months back, official data revealed that though foreigners comprise just 15 per cent of the population of our country, they commit 41 per cent of all crime and up to a quarter of sex crimes. In the first nine months of 2024, almost 14 per cent of grooming suspects were Pakistani, five times their share of the population. Two nationalities – Afghans and Eritreans – were more than 20 times more likely to account for sexual offence convictions than British citizens, according to the data. Overall, foreign nationals were 71 per cent more likely than Britons to be responsible for sex crime convictions. Based on convictions per 10,000 of the population, Afghans with 77 convictions topped the table with a rate of 59 per 10,000, 22.3 times that of Britons. They were followed by Eritreans, who accounted for 59 convictions at a rate of 53.6 per 10,000 of their population. In March 2025, data from the Ministry of Justice revealed that foreigners, who claim £1 billion a month in benefits, were also responsible for large proportions of violence, robbery, fraud and drug offences, between 2021 and 2023. There was no data for terrorism offences or acts of anti-Semitism. But does anybody want to hazard a guess? Which brings us to a fundamental question. Why? Why does Britain need to allow the criminals of the world to come to our shores to abuse women and girls, run criminal enterprises, foster terrorism and anti-Semitism, and claim benefits in the process? Obviously not all foreigners from these countries behave in this way. But facts aren't racist. Large numbers are pulling down our pants, spanking our buttocks and pulling them up again. In fact, the problem is not one of race but one of politics and culture. In my new book, Never Again? How the West Betrayed the Jews and Itself, which is coming out at the end of September, I look at groundbreaking research published in April by cognitive scientists Scott Barry Kaufman and Craig Neumann. They found that 'citizens in democratic countries have more benevolent traits, fewer malevolent traits, and greater well-being' than those living under autocratic regimes. Based on a study of 200,000 people from 75 countries, people living under autocracies were found to be much more likely to exhibit the 'Dark Triad' of negative personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. In democracies, by contrast, more people displayed the 'Light Triad' of humanism, faith in humanity and 'Kantianism', or treating people with dignity in their own right rather than viewing them as a means to an end. Obviously, this is not related to race. Russians are hardly black, but they hardly live in a democracy either. It is a case of cognitive development. The problem occurs when, in an age of global travel, 'Dark Triad' migrants who grew up in despotic regimes encounter gullible 'Light Triad' officials in the democracies, whose empathies are easily played upon. That is why we find British judges ruling that an Albanian convict should avoid deportation because his son had an aversion to foreign chicken nuggets, a Pakistani drug dealer could stay so he could teach his son about Islam, and a paedophile of the same nationality should not be sent home since it would be 'unduly harsh' on his own children. These real-life cases, reported by the Telegraph, provide a clear collision of the 'Dark Triad' traits in the criminals and the 'Light Triad' tendencies in the judges. It is a chemical reaction waiting to happen, and the vast majority of the population, wherever they are born, are suffering the consequences. In other words, we are being taken for fools. No foreign criminal has a God-given right to set up home in Britain just because he fancies it. This is our home, and although we are delighted to welcome strangers, that generosity should be withdrawn from those who nick our television and threaten our children – even if their own happen to like the chicken nuggets in our fridge. Trump has now thrown down the gauntlet. What is the British Government going to do to set our own house in order? Will it take an anti-Semitic outrage like the firebombing in Colorado before the Prime Minister takes action? Will he take action even then? Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.