Trumps Intelligence Pick Renews Debate: Is the Director of National Intelligence Needed?

Amid the tumult surrounding President Trump’s decision to appoint an ally with no national security experience to become the acting director of national intelligence, some critics are asking: Should the job even exist?The post was created in the aftermath of two major intelligence failures: the Sept.11, 2001, terror attacks and the incorrect assessment that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.The idea was that a high-ranking intelligence official, independent of any particular spy agency, would improve coordination and communication among various departments.Today, the office oversees the work of 18 intelligence agencies including the C.I.A., the F.B.I., the National Security Agency and a range of smaller offices inside the Pentagon, the State Department and other parts of the government.Critics say the office has become too large and inefficient in the past 20 years and question its utility.

Supporters say the office’s primary functions are as crucial now as they were at the beginning of the century.This month, President Trump announced he was appointing Bill Pulte as acting director, replacing Tulsi Gabbard, who is stepping down in the wake of her husband’s cancer diagnosis.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe....