War Stories
By
Fred Kaplan
Enter your email to receive alerts for this author.
Sign in or create an account to better manage your email preferences.
Unsubscribe from email alerts
Are you sure you want to unsubscribe from email alerts for Fred Kaplan ?
June 15, 2026 5:45 AM
Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images and Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images.
Last week, when President Donald Trump was about to nominate Bill Pulte, the head of his housing-finance authority, to be director of national intelligence, some Republican senators proposed abolishing the DNI office rather than vote down such a clearly unqualified candidate and thereby arouse Trump’s vindictiveness.
Many were relieved when Trump withdrew Pulte’s name and instead nominated Jay Clayton , a former SEC commissioner who is now the U.S. prosecutor for the Southern District of New York. Clayton may be in some respects a more serious choice, but the law creating the office back in 2004 required that the director have “extensive national security expertise” —something Clayton lacks as well. And so, some still mull just scuttling the agency.
Is this a good idea? The office was created in the wake of the 9/11 attack, when a commission concluded that the terrorists succeeded in part because U.S. intelligence agencies weren’t communicating with one another and thus couldn’t “connect the dots” that would have allowed them to see a complete picture of al-Qaida’s plot. The DNI’s office, or ODNI, would coordinate the agencies—all 18 of them—to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
How’s that worked out the past 22 years? Has the office served its purpose, or has it lingered one bureaucracy layered on top of a bunch of other bureaucracies, as some critics foresaw? What would happen if ODNI were abolished and the CIA once again become, as its initials indicate, the Central Intelligence Agency?
I have followed the agency and talked with some of its directors and analysts ever since it was created. In the past week, I’ve interviewed (on a background basis) some of its former senior officials from Democratic and Republican administrations, as well as some close observers. And I’ve concluded that, while far from perfect, ODNI has performed its tasks well and that abolishing it would be a serious mistake.
First, without the DNI, the intel agencies would once again be unable to “connect the dots”—which, as one former senior official told me, “is even more important now than it was on 9/11,” given the added complexities brought on by globalization since then. The CIA can’t do it; in fact, the CIA never wanted to share its intel. Nor would anyone have the authority to demand that, for instance, the FBI share information with the Department of Homeland Security.
Second, the agencies on their own tend to collect intelligence that addresses their own needs. Nine of these agencies are within the Defense Department, so they focus mainly on the tactical needs of warfighters, not on broad national interests.
Third, to the extent intel agencies do focus on similar issues, they sometimes disagree, and the DNI is seen—at least theoretically—as an “honest broker” that can pull together the conflicting views and explain where and why they differ. Having all this information in one place is especially vital for Cabinet secretaries and White House aides who make decisions on the National Security Council. (At least this has been true in administrations that value intelligence information.)
Fourth, the DNI can set common standards for intelligence collection and analysis. For example, in the old days, the National Security Agency (which intercepts foreign communications) refused to share some data with the CIA and other agencies because the special rooms where they stored highly classified materials didn’t meet the NSA’s standards for shielding from electronic penetration. Early on, the DNI assembled technicians from all the agencies to set common standards.
Fifth, the DNI can set priorities for technical innovations that the other agencies can’t do on their own, at least not without creating a dozen or more different approaches, spawning duplication, unfilled gaps, or both. The DNI has been doing this with the merging of intelligence assets with A.I., according to knowledgeable sources.
If ODNI didn’t exist, other agencies could theoretically take up the slack. For instance, in 2008, his final year in office, President George W. Bush issued an order giving ODNI the job of assembling the President’s Daily Brief . The CIA had done this job in the past and could resume doing it if ODNI were abolished. But it wouldn’t have—or perhaps even seek—the same access to all-agency intelligence, and it would tend to value its own analyses over those of competing agencies. (In fact, Bush gave ODNI this job because the CIA’s daily briefs on the Iraq war were so clearly designed to reinforce his own prejudices and thus polish the CIA’s image in his eyes .) Bu…
Read the full article at Slate →📄Source document: Senate Intelligence Committee→17 reports
CBS News (US)IndependentCenter3 days agoPresident Donald Trump has disrupted Senate Republicans' efforts to confirm Jay Clayton as director of national intelligence by demanding changes to the confirmation process and reauthorization of Section 702 of FISA. The Senate canceled Clayton's confirmation hearing after it became clear he would not attend due to Trump's demands. Senate Majority Leader John Thune expressed frustration with the situation.
Bias read (Center): The article presents events objectively without overtly favoring either side. It reports on Trump's actions and their impact on Senate Republicans without using loaded language or selectively emphasizing one perspective over another. The framing remains neutral, focusing on the disruption caused by
Official sources cited
- government Senate Majority Leader John Thune's statement
The Washington TimesIndependentRight4 days agoThe confirmation hearing for Jay Clayton, President Donald Trump's nominee for Director of National Intelligence, was postponed after Trump pressured Senate Republicans to delay it in an attempt to advance his election integrity legislation, the SAVE America Act. Trump claimed Republicans had agreed to expedite Clayton's confirmation without securing any concessions. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton stated that Clayton is a qualified nominee and expressed disappointment that the hearing was postponed.
Bias read (Right): The article uses terms like 'bigfooted,' 'trap,' and 'regrettable' to describe the actions of Senate Republicans and the president's response, suggesting criticism of the Senate's decision-making while portraying Trump's actions as justified. The framing emphasizes Trump's influence and the Senate's
AxiosIndependentCenter4 days agoThe confirmation hearing for Jay Clayton, Donald Trump's nominee for Director of National Intelligence, faced uncertainty after conflicting statements from Trump and Senator Tom Cotton. Trump initially claimed the hearing was canceled, while Cotton stated it remained on schedule unless directed otherwise by the president. The situation arises amid tensions involving Trump's appointment of Bill Pulte as acting intelligence chief and the potential nomination of James McDonald as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both Trump's claim that the hearing was canceled and Cotton's assertion that it was still scheduled, without overtly favoring either side. It provides context about the nominations and potential conflicts but avoids explicit endorsement or criticism of any position.
The HillIndependentRight4 days agoJay Clayton, President Trump's nominee to replace Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence, is scheduled to appear before senators for his confirmation hearing. However, Trump has indicated that Republicans may cancel the hearing due to Democratic opposition to extending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act unless Trump removes Bill Pulte from a position.
Bias read (Right): The article focuses on a Republican-led action (canceling a confirmation hearing) in response to Democratic demands, which frames the situation from a conservative perspective by emphasizing the potential cancellation of the hearing as a result of Democratic obstruction. This framing aligns with a '
Official sources cited
- government President Trump's announcement
CBS News (US)IndependentCenter4 days ago Senate postpones Clayton's confirmation hearing after Trump upends plansThe Senate has postponed Jay Clayton's confirmation hearing for the position of Director of National Intelligence following an eleventh-hour intervention by President Donald Trump. Trump, via a post on Truth Social, claimed he would cancel the hearing unless the Senate approved a replacement for his current role as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Initially, Senator Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, stated the committee intended to proceed with the hearing unless directed otherwise by the president.
Bias read (Center): The article presents events objectively without overtly favoring any political side. It reports on the actions of both the Senate and President Trump without using biased language or selectively emphasizing one perspective over another. The framing remains neutral, focusing on the sequence of events
Official sources cited
- government President Donald Trump
- government Senator Tom Cotton
- government Senate Majority Leader John Thune
Bloomberg NewsParty-aligned🔒Center4 days agoThe U.S. Senate postponed the confirmation hearing for Jay Clayton, nominated to be the next intelligence director, after President Donald Trump demanded a delay. Senate Intelligence Chairman Tom Cotton expressed disappointment with the decision but stated that the hearing would be rescheduled soon.
Bias read (Center): The article presents facts without overtly biased language or selective sourcing. It reports on the postponement of a Senate hearing and includes statements from both the White House and Senate officials, providing a balanced account of the situation.
The New York Times (US)Independent🔒Center4 days agoPresident Trump selected Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, following bipartisan opposition to his initial nominee, Bill Pulte. This decision effectively secures Bill Pulte's position for the time being.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual account of the personnel change without overtly favoring either side. It does not include subjective language or emphasize one perspective over another.
NPR NewsIndependentCenter4 days agoThe Senate Intelligence Committee announced it will proceed with the confirmation hearing for Jay Clayton as Director of National Intelligence, despite President Trump's request to delay the process.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the situation factually without apparent bias. It reports both the Senate's decision to proceed and Trump's call for a delay without taking a stance or using loaded language.
Official sources cited
- government Senate Intelligence Committee
The Washington TimesIndependentRight4 days ago Senate Republican defies Trump's demand to delay confirmation hearing for DNI nomineePresident Trump attempted to cancel the confirmation hearing for Jay Clayton's nomination as director of national intelligence, but Senate Republicans, including Senator Tom Cotton, stated they would proceed with the hearing unless Trump directed Clayton not to appear or withdrew his nomination. Trump expressed frustration with what he views as Republican concessions to Democratic demands regarding William J. Pulte's interim appointment.
Bias read (Right): The article presents Trump's actions and motivations in a sympathetic light, portraying his attempt to cancel the hearing as a response to perceived Republican concessions to Democrats. It emphasizes Trump's perspective without providing counterpoints or balanced coverage of the Senate's position or
The HillIndependentRight6 days ago This week on The Hill: Senate tees up Clayton DNI nomination as FISA talks stallThe Senate Intelligence Committee is preparing to hold a confirmation hearing for Jay Clayton, President Trump's nominee to be director of national intelligence. This comes amid stalled discussions over extending Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which expired on June 12 due to a lack of congressional agreement. Democrats have indicated they will oppose any FISA extension unless Trump withdraws his appointment of Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence. Trump has not shown willingness to concede on this issue, stating that Pulte will only serve for
Bias read (Right): The article frames the situation with emphasis on Trump's actions and statements, portraying his position as reasonable ('he’s only there for a little while') and suggesting that Democratic opposition is obstructive. It does not provide balanced coverage of the potential consequences of delaying FIS
SlateIndependentLeft6 days agoThe article discusses recent political developments involving the nomination of individuals for the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) position under President Donald Trump. It highlights how some Republican senators considered abolishing the DNI office rather than opposing Trump's initial nominee, Bill Pulte, whom they deemed unqualified. After Trump withdrew Pulte's name and nominated Jay Clayton, concerns remain about whether Clayton meets the legal requirements for the role. The article references the creation of the DNI office following the 9/11 attacks, emphasizing its purpose in un
Bias read (Left): The article frames the potential abolition of the DNI office as a 'terrible idea,' suggesting criticism of the Republican approach to handling Trump's nominations. The tone implies disapproval of the political maneuvering and emphasizes the importance of maintaining the DNI office, which aligns with
The HillIndependentCenter6 days ago Warner says Clayton has ‘right temperament’ for national intelligence director roleSenator Mark Warner (D-Va.) stated that U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton has the 'right temperament' for the position of director of national intelligence. This comment comes as there are ongoing concerns regarding the temporary appointment of Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a statement from Senator Mark Warner regarding Jay Clayton's suitability for a federal position. There is no evident bias in the framing, word choice, emphasis, or sourcing. The content remains neutral and does not show a clear ideological slant.
Official sources cited
- government Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.)
ABC News (US)IndependentRight9 days agoPresident Donald Trump nominated Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and a former SEC chairman, to serve as director of national intelligence. This comes amid controversy surrounding Trump's previous appointment of Bill Pulte as acting director, which faced significant opposition from Democrats. Trump expressed strong support for Clayton, highlighting his legal expertise and urging the Senate to confirm him quickly.
Bias read (Right): The article presents Trump's actions and statements without overtly critical language but emphasizes Trump's endorsement of Clayton and his criticism of congressional opposition. The framing highlights Trump's confidence in Clayton's qualifications and his dismissal of concerns raised by Democrats,傾
The New York Times (US)Independent🔒Center9 days ago What to Know About Jay Clayton, Trump’s Pick for Intelligence DirectorJay Clayton, who has served as the U.S. attorney in Manhattan and previously held the position of chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, is being considered by President Trump for the role of intelligence director.
Bias read (Center): The article provides a factual overview of Jay Clayton's professional background without overtly favoring any political perspective. It does not include commentary or framing that suggests a particular ideological leaning.
AxiosIndependentRight9 days ago Trump picks Jay Clayton for Director of National IntelligencePresident Trump announced his intention to nominate Jay Clayton, the current U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, as the permanent Director of National Intelligence. Clayton would replace Bill Pulte, who is currently serving as the acting director. Critics argue that Pulte lacks sufficient experience for the role. Trump praised Clayton's legal expertise and urged the Senate to confirm him quickly. Clayton was recommended to Trump by CIA Director John Ratcliffe. The nomination comes amid concerns over Pulte's potential bias due to his prior role investigating Trump's political对手
Bias read (Right): The article presents Trump's announcement and praise for Jay Clayton without critical examination of the nomination itself. It highlights Trump’s endorsement and emphasizes Clayton’s credentials as seen through Trump’s lens, while briefly mentioning opposition but not providing balanced perspectives
AxiosIndependentCenter10 days ago Scoop: Pulte sought Gabbard's early removal as intel czarTulsi Gabbard, the outgoing director of national intelligence, received an unexpected call from her successor, Bill Pulte, who informed her that her tenure would end immediately. Gabbard was taken aback, as she had planned to leave at the end of the month. She requested confirmation from President Trump, who did not demand her immediate resignation but instead asked for a preferred departure date. Gabbard chose June 19, and Trump publicly announced this new date. The situation arose amid tensions between the Trump administration and Congress over the renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual account of events without overtly favoring any political side. It reports on interactions between individuals in the intelligence community and does not include biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorializing.
SlateIndependentRight12 days ago Trump’s B-TeamThe article discusses Bill Pulte's appointment as the new acting Director of National Intelligence, noting that Pulte previously served as Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and had no prior experience in national security. The piece questions the convenience of Trump choosing someone from his existing circle for this role.
Bias read (Right): The article frames the appointment as 'convenient' and references Bill Pulte's association with Trump's inner circle, implying a lack of qualifications for the role. This suggests a critical perspective toward the selection process, aligning with a right-leaning critique of Trump's administration.
United States