Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
The FBI is warning Congress that a proposal by House lawmakers to strip the bureau of its counterintelligence authority and transfer it to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard would “cause serious and long-lasting damage” to national security, according to a letter sent this week to Capitol Hill.
In the unclassified letter, first reported by The New York Times, the FBI registered its “strong objection” to the House proposal, which would give Gabbard sweeping approval powers over U.S. counterintelligence operations — responsibilities the bureau has historically managed. The letter also exposed growing tensions between FBI Director Kash Patel, Gabbard, and other intelligence agencies.
“The FBI has consistently articulated its strong objection to the proposal, and believes it would cause serious and long-lasting damage to the U.S. national security,” the letter stated.
The bureau argued that it has decades of experience leading counterespionage investigations through its 53 field offices, and warned that shifting authority to Gabbard’s office would inject bureaucracy and put decision-making into the hands of officials “not actively involved in counterintelligence operations.”
Turf war inside the intelligence community
The clash marks the latest turf battle between Gabbard and other security agencies as she seeks to expand the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s (ODNI) operational power. Gabbard has previously drawn criticism from the CIA after reportedly revoking security clearances for several current and former intelligence officials without consulting the agency.
An intelligence community official told NBC News that “healthy debate between agencies helps us best protect national security,” but acknowledged the FBI letter was likely “a pre-emptive response” to an internal ODNI policy document still under review.
The CIA and other agencies share many of the FBI’s concerns, two officials familiar with the matter said.
Despite the internal rift, the FBI and ODNI issued a joint public statement on Wednesday, saying they “are united in working with Congress to strengthen our nation’s counterintelligence efforts to best protect the safety, security, and freedom of the American people.”
Legislative battle
The dispute comes as lawmakers hammer out an intelligence policy bill in both chambers of Congress. The House version would give the DNI authority to approve all counterintelligence “activities,” though it leaves that term undefined — a point the FBI said could create legal confusion.
“Would a counterintelligence-related prosecution be considered an ‘activity’ that must receive approval from this new Director?” the FBI letter asked. “Would that give the new Director of the Counterintelligence Center authority over the FBI or Attorney General for all counterintelligence investigations?”
By contrast, the Senate proposal does not call for transferring the FBI’s lead role. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in an email that while he supports reviewing counterintelligence operations, he opposes “dismantling the FBI’s lead role and giving ODNI operational control.”
“That’s not what ODNI was created for,” Warner said. “This approach risks creating turf battles and undermining the effectiveness of our intelligence community. ODNI should be a force multiplier, not a competing agency.”
Political and policy stakes
House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) has praised the House proposal as a long-overdue modernization of U.S. counterintelligence strategy.
“While our adversaries in China, Russia, Iran, and terrorist groups operate on a war footing, too often we have remained reactive and risk-averse,” Crawford said last month.
The director of national intelligence position, established after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, was intended to coordinate — not command — the nation’s multiple spy agencies. The FBI’s warning underscores how Gabbard’s plan could upend that balance and spark an unprecedented struggle over control of the nation’s counterespionage mission.
