Trump Administration Live Updates: Republicans Advance Tax and Medicaid Cuts Despite Bipartisan Criticism
The moves by Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, are part of her effort to shore up the role of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
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.
Ms. Gabbard's office announced the decision 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 C.I.A. spokeswoman declined to comment.
In a statement, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, did not address Ms. Gabbard's move of the daily brief to her headquarters, instead saying that she is 'clearly doing an excellent job keeping the president constantly informed of national security developments around the world' and adding that Mr. Trump has 'full confidence in her.'
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, the council 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. It was not clear how that would be different from the existing system.
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.
Charlie Savage and Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
26 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
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Justice David Souter and state constitutional law
Among scholars who study state courts and state constitutions, Justice David Souter was notable for the experience at the state level that he brought with him to the Supreme Court. (Photo by) Following retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter's passing last month, commentators memorialized the justice with appreciations of his analytical acumen and commitment to the role of neutral arbiter. Steven Vladeck, for instance, praised Souter for 'just how seriously he took his job as a justice — and a judge.' At the same time, however, as longtime Supreme Court observer Linda Greenhouse noted in The New York Times, Souter's 'name was on so few significant opinions and his profile at the court was so low that after his first few years, legal academia essentially stopped paying attention to him.' Not all of legal academia. Among scholars who study state courts and state constitutions, Souter was notable for the experience at the state level that he brought with him to the Supreme Court. During his tenure as a member of New Hampshire's highest court, that court contributed to the development of state constitutional law in significant ways. The Granite State stood at the forefront of the jurisprudential phenomenon known as the 'new judicial federalism' — the practice of state courts interpreting the individual rights provisions of their own constitutions independently of the Supreme Court's rulings on the parallel protections contained in the federal Bill of Rights. The new judicial federalism was inspired, in large part, by an essay published in the Harvard Law Review in 1977. Alarmed by the extent to which the Supreme Court was retreating from the robust protection of individual rights under the federal constitution, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan reminded readers that 'State constitutions, too, are a font of individual liberties, their protections often extending beyond those required by the Supreme Court's interpretation of federal law.' In other words, individuals and advocates should consider, in appropriate cases, the depth and reach of state constitutional individual rights provisions. The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard Brennan's call. In its 1983 decision in State v. Ball, the high court held that, when state constitutional issues are properly raised, the state courts have 'a responsibility to make an independent determination of the protections afforded in the New Hampshire Constitution.' To ignore this obligation, the court continued, would be to fail in the duty to defend the state constitution, which in turn would undermine 'the federalism that must be so carefully safeguarded by our people.' A commitment to the independent interpretation of the state constitution necessarily entails the development of approaches and modes of analysis suited to that particular constitutional context, which Justice Souter recognized in a 1986 case, State v. Bradberry. Souter had been appointed to the high court when the court issued its opinion in Ball, but he did not participate in the decision. Bradberry thus presented an opportunity for him to explain the stakes for state constitutional law in individual rights cases: 'If we place too much reliance on federal precedent,' he wrote, 'we will render the State rules a mere row of shadows; if we place too little, we will render State practice incoherent. If we are going to steer between these extremes, we will have to insist on developed advocacy from those who bring the cases before us.' Justice Souter's plea for support from the bar in state constitutional cases continues to resonate. In our treatise on state constitutional law, 'The Law of American State Constitutions,' my co-author Bob Williams and I referred to Souter's opinion in Bradberry as a definitive statement on the matter. In the book, we echoed the perspective articulated in his opinion: State courts that rely wholly on federal law in interpreting their state constitutional rights protections risk diminishing those protections, while too little respect for federal precedent risks isolating a state's law from the larger, national discourse about the meaning of common individual rights provisions. His experience with state constitutional law and the new judicial federalism distinguished Justice Souter's career from that of most of his fellow U.S. Supreme Court justices, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court's commitment to fostering independent state constitutional interpretation in State v. Ball has distinguished it from other state courts. In Bradberry, Justice Souter maintained that the commitment represents but an initial step toward reckoning with state constitutional text. In ascertaining the meaning of the state's charter, Souter advised, the state's courts should expect to rely on counsel representing each side of a case to illuminate the text. Such advocacy allows judges to consider the full range of interpretive possibilities that may lie in particular provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution — and creates an alternative to relying exclusively on the views of nine judges in Washington, D.C., who are tasked with construing a similar but fundamentally different constitution
Yahoo
31 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
