President Donald Trump has opened a new front in his effort to reshape the federal government, saying he wants the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to become substantially smaller and suggesting that the agency could eventually be dissolved altogether.
Speaking to reporters, Trump argued that the intelligence office had grown beyond what was necessary and said Acting Director Bill Pulte should begin reducing the agency’s workforce before a permanent director is selected. According to CBS News, the president described the organization as unnecessarily large and questioned whether it should continue operating in its current form.
The comments represent one of the clearest indications yet that the Trump administration intends to pursue structural changes within the nation’s intelligence bureaucracy, extending an effort that has already affected several federal agencies through workforce reductions and organizational restructuring.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence occupies a unique position within the U.S. government. Created after the intelligence failures exposed by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the office is responsible for coordinating the activities of the country’s 18 intelligence agencies and advising the president on national security matters. Rather than conducting intelligence operations directly, the office serves as a central coordinating body intended to improve information sharing across the intelligence community.
Trump, however, questioned whether the organization has become too large to fulfill that mission efficiently.
According to CBS News, the president said he would prefer to see a significantly smaller organization and argued that too many employees remained from previous administrations.
“I’d like to see it smaller,” Trump said, adding that there were people working at the agency whom he believed should no longer be there.
When asked whether he wanted Pulte to dismiss employees immediately, Trump replied that he wanted the acting director to begin that process, leaving future decisions to the permanent head of the office once that individual is confirmed.
The president compared the proposed restructuring to reductions already undertaken at the Department of Education, another federal institution that has been targeted for major downsizing during his administration.
Trump went further by suggesting that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence might ultimately cease to exist as an independent organization.
“We’ll make that decision,” he said, according to CBS News, indicating that eliminating the agency entirely remained one possible outcome under consideration.
No formal timetable has been announced for workforce reductions, and administration officials have not confirmed when any restructuring might begin. Nevertheless, Trump’s remarks signaled that significant organizational changes remain a priority.
At the center of the discussion is Bill Pulte, who currently serves as acting director while continuing to lead the Federal Housing Finance Agency. In his housing role, Pulte oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored enterprises that play central roles in the U.S. mortgage market.
Because he is serving in an acting capacity, Pulte may hold the intelligence position for up to 210 days while the White House searches for a permanent nominee.
Trump suggested that temporary leadership can provide greater flexibility in implementing reforms.
Referring to Pulte’s interim status, the president argued that acting officials sometimes face fewer practical constraints when introducing organizational changes, allowing them to move more quickly during periods of transition.
He also suggested that having Pulte initiate reforms before a permanent director takes office could make the eventual transition easier for the incoming leadership.
The president’s comments were reinforced by an official within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, who said previous cost-cutting efforts had already produced significant reductions.
According to the official, former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard oversaw a restructuring initiative that reduced the agency’s staffing by nearly half while generating substantial savings for taxpayers. The official characterized the effort as part of an internal modernization strategy intended to streamline operations and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy.
The same official also said Gabbard had previously indicated she would be willing to serve as the last director of national intelligence if policymakers ultimately concluded that the office was no longer required.
In addition, the official expressed support for working with both Trump and Pulte on further initiatives aimed at reducing costs and removing what the administration has repeatedly described as elements of the “deep state” within the federal government.
The remarks reflect a broader political message that has become a defining feature of Trump’s second administration, which has emphasized reducing the size of the federal workforce while increasing presidential control over executive agencies.
Meanwhile, the search for a permanent intelligence chief continues.
While traveling aboard Air Force One on Friday, Trump said he was interviewing five candidates for the permanent position of director of national intelligence. He declined to identify the candidates but indicated that a decision would be made after additional discussions.
Questions surrounding Pulte’s appointment have focused not only on his temporary status but also on his professional background.
Unlike many previous leaders of the intelligence community, Pulte is not widely known for experience in national security or intelligence operations.
Asked whether that presented a concern, Trump dismissed the criticism, arguing that intelligence leadership depends more on judgment and ability than on prior experience within the national security establishment.
The president praised Pulte’s intelligence and predicted that he would learn quickly.
Drawing a comparison to his own career, Trump said he entered government without extensive national security experience but believed he had performed effectively in that area during his presidency.
The appointment has generated resistance on Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers have questioned whether the intelligence community should be led by an acting official lacking a traditional intelligence background.
The debate coincided with Senate consideration of legislation involving the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, commonly known as FISA, which authorizes certain intelligence-gathering activities.
According to reports from Capitol Hill, the Senate failed to advance an extension of a key surveillance program after several lawmakers expressed opposition while Pulte remained in charge of the intelligence community.
The outcome highlighted how leadership disputes can complicate broader national security legislation, particularly when surveillance authorities require bipartisan support.
Pulte has also attracted political attention because of his previous actions as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Earlier this year, he initiated an investigation into alleged mortgage fraud involving several political opponents of Trump, a move that generated controversy both inside and outside the Republican Party.
Critics questioned whether housing regulators should become involved in politically sensitive investigations, while supporters argued that potential financial misconduct deserved scrutiny regardless of political affiliation.
Trump has also indicated that Pulte could examine allegations related to election administration, including claims about the 2020 presidential election that continue to be disputed and have been repeatedly rejected by courts and election officials.
The president said he believed Pulte possessed both the determination and the energy to pursue such inquiries if they fell within his responsibilities.
Supporters of the administration argue that reviewing the structure of the intelligence community is part of a broader effort to improve efficiency and reduce unnecessary spending.
Critics, however, warn that major organizational changes should be undertaken cautiously because the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was established to improve coordination among agencies after significant intelligence failures two decades ago.
Eliminating or dramatically reducing its role, they argue, could create new challenges for information sharing at a time when the United States faces increasingly complex threats ranging from cyberattacks and foreign espionage to international terrorism and geopolitical competition.
Whether the administration ultimately pursues a complete restructuring or settles for a smaller organization will likely depend on congressional support, budget negotiations and the priorities of whoever is eventually nominated to lead the intelligence community on a permanent basis.
For now, Trump’s remarks have placed the future of one of Washington’s most important coordinating agencies squarely at the center of a broader debate over the size, mission and accountability of the federal government.
