According to reports, six political appointees have already been dismissed, while approximately 45 to 50 career intelligence officers who had been temporarily assigned to ODNI are being sent back to the agencies where they permanently work.
Supporters of the move argue that the changes are being mischaracterized by critics and represent a long-overdue effort to reduce duplication and inefficiency within the intelligence system.
Among those defending the restructuring is Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Speaking on the Senate floor Wednesday, Cotton pushed back against claims that the administration was carrying out widespread dismissals.
Cotton said Pulte informed him that only “a small handful of front-office personnel” were leaving, “which is not at all uncommon when a senior leader leaves an agency or one comes into an agency.”
The Arkansas senator also emphasized that the career officers involved were not being terminated but merely returning to the agencies that originally assigned them to ODNI.
“I think that’s a step in the right direction,” Cotton said.
Cotton has consistently argued that ODNI has become too large since its creation following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Last year, he introduced legislation that would cap the agency’s workforce at 650 full-time employees.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was established in 2004 after recommendations from the 9/11 Commission, which sought to improve coordination among America’s intelligence agencies. Today, the office oversees cooperation among 18 separate intelligence organizations.
But critics of the agency have increasingly questioned whether the office has expanded beyond its intended purpose, creating additional layers of bureaucracy without delivering proportional improvements in intelligence operations.
Not everyone is pleased with the Trump administration’s approach.
Several former intelligence officials have publicly criticized the staffing reductions, warning that the agency could lose institutional knowledge and operational effectiveness.
Beth Sanner, who served as deputy director of national intelligence and also briefed President Trump during his first term, offered a particularly grim assessment.
“The agency is being so hollowed out that its new name might become DNR — do not resuscitate,” Sanner told reporters. “It’s on life support already.”
Others questioned the speed of the changes rather than the concept of reform itself.
Julia Curlee, a former intelligence adviser in Trump’s White House who recently departed the CIA after two decades as an analyst, acknowledged that debate over ODNI’s size is legitimate.
“Reasonable people can debate ODNI’s size and mission,” Curlee said.
However, she sharply criticized the execution of the plan, adding, “But sacking dozens of seasoned officers in your first week isn’t reform — it’s performative firing to please a president who treats his own intelligence community as the enemy within.”
Former CIA officer John Sipher, who spent nearly three decades with the agency and once served as station chief in Moscow, also expressed reservations.
“Getting [the agency] smaller makes sense, but this isn’t the way to do it,” Sipher said.
Despite those objections, supporters of the restructuring note that many of the personnel changes involve reassignments rather than layoffs and reflect President Trump’s longstanding belief that federal agencies should operate with fewer layers of management and less bureaucratic overlap.
The latest overhaul is also consistent with Trump’s broader efforts to challenge entrenched institutions in Washington.
Earlier this year, Trump and Pulte jointly called for a federal investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.
The controversy centered on the Federal Reserve’s costly $2.5 billion headquarters renovation project in Washington.
Pulte accused Powell of misleading lawmakers during congressional testimony regarding the scope and cost of the project. According to Pulte, Powell’s statements about certain renovation features being removed from earlier plans did not adequately address concerns surrounding the massive expenditure.
Pulte went further, accusing the Fed chairman of providing “deceptive” testimony and arguing that Powell’s actions could justify removal for cause.
As the Trump administration continues its campaign to reshape major government institutions, the intelligence community appears to be among the first targets for significant reform.
Whether the latest changes represent a necessary correction or a controversial downsizing effort will likely remain a subject of fierce debate in Washington. What is clear, however, is that the administration is moving aggressively to reduce what it views as unnecessary bureaucracy and return federal agencies to a more streamlined structure.
