President Trump has directed incoming acting Director of National Intelligence Bill Pulte to begin removing officials hired during the Obama and Biden administrations from the nation's intelligence agencies, a sweeping personnel move that bypasses the Senate confirmation process and hands a former real estate executive authority over more than $100 billion in annual intelligence spending.
Trump told the Wall Street Journal he views the intelligence community as bloated and compromised. His instructions to Pulte are blunt: start firing.
The move places Pulte, elevated just this week from his post atop the Federal Housing Finance Agency, in charge of 18 federal intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the FBI. He replaces Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned last month after her husband was diagnosed with a rare bone cancer. And because Pulte will serve in an acting capacity rather than as a Senate-confirmed appointee, he sidesteps the drawn-out vetting process that has stalled or sunk previous nominees, a procedural advantage Trump appears eager to exploit.
In remarks to the Wall Street Journal, Trump laid out his reasoning in characteristically direct terms. As the Daily Mail reported, Trump said the agencies Pulte now oversees are "unnecessary and/or too big."
"I'd like to see it smaller. I think there are a lot of people in there that shouldn't be there."
Trump told reporters he wants Pulte to "start the process" of firing people, even though Pulte holds only an acting title. Far from seeing that status as a limitation, Trump framed it as a tactical advantage.
"You're less shackled. It sort of gives you more power, you know, for a somewhat limited period of time."
The president added that he wants Pulte to do the heavy lifting before a permanent intelligence chief is installed. The logic is straightforward: let the acting director absorb the political cost of restructuring so the eventual nominee arrives at a leaner operation.
"Frankly, it might be good for him to shake it up before people come. Because, if he [Pulte] reduced the size, in conjunction with me... and in conjunction with possibly the person coming in... he can do a lot of the hard work and we wouldn't have to saddle somebody that goes in."
Pulte is a former Florida real estate executive who had been running the Federal Housing Finance Agency before Trump elevated him to the country's top intelligence post. He had been angling for the DNI job in recent weeks and reportedly told the president he would be loyal and carry out Trump's directives to the intelligence community.
The position gives Pulte enormous reach. Beyond overseeing 18 agencies and their combined budget of more than $100 billion, the DNI role carries the authority to declassify vast numbers of secret documents. Trump told the Wall Street Journal he wants Pulte to exercise that power broadly, including over classified materials related to the 2020 election and Trump's claims of voter fraud.
"I would say everything, he should look at everything and make a determination."
Pulte will also brief the president on the most sensitive intelligence the government possesses. For critics, handing that responsibility to someone with no intelligence background is reckless. For the administration, it is the point. An outsider with no institutional loyalty to the agencies he oversees is precisely the kind of figure Trump believes the moment requires.
The backlash has not come only from the expected quarters. Pulte's elevation sparked resistance among Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, though the specific members who objected have not been publicly identified. The concern appears to center on the use of an acting appointment to bypass the Senate's advice-and-consent role, a constitutional prerogative senators of both parties guard jealously, even when they support the president's broader agenda.
That tension is real, and it is worth taking seriously. The Senate confirmation process exists for a reason. But it is also worth noting what that process has become in practice: a slow-motion gauntlet that rewards bureaucratic inertia and punishes presidents who try to install leaders willing to challenge the permanent workforce. Gabbard's tenure as DNI lasted only until personal tragedy intervened. Before her, nominees faced months of delay and political theater.
Trump's calculation is transparent. He would rather have a loyal operator in place now, even temporarily, than wait for a confirmed nominee who arrives too late to reshape the agencies before institutional resistance hardens.
A spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence signaled the office is aligned with the president's direction.
"We look forward to working with Mr Pulte and President Trump on additional initiatives to advance savings and root out deep state bad actors."
That phrase, "deep state bad actors", is not the kind of language intelligence spokesmen typically use. Its appearance in an official ODNI statement tells you something about how thoroughly the Trump administration's posture has reshaped the bureaucracy's public voice, at least at the top.
For all the boldness of the announcement, key details remain unresolved. Which specific officials are targeted for removal? How many positions will be cut? Which of the 18 agencies under the DNI umbrella face the deepest reductions? It is not even clear whether any firings have already taken place.
Trump has not named a candidate for permanent DNI. The timeline for mass personnel actions is undefined. And the legal mechanics of firing career intelligence officials, many of whom enjoy civil-service protections, remain a contested area of executive authority that previous administrations have struggled to navigate.
None of that means the effort will fail. But it does mean the gap between presidential intent and operational reality could be wide. Intelligence agencies are not startups. They are layered, compartmented, and staffed by people who have spent careers learning how to outlast political appointees.
Trump's instruction to Pulte on classified documents adds another dimension. The president wants a broad review of secret materials, with particular attention to documents connected to the 2020 election. The DNI's declassification authority is substantial, and Trump's directive, "look at everything", suggests he wants Pulte to use it aggressively.
Whether that review produces material that reshapes public understanding of the 2020 contest or simply reopens old arguments depends entirely on what the documents contain. But the political signal is unmistakable: this administration intends to use every lever available to reopen questions it believes were prematurely closed.
The intelligence community has operated for years with minimal accountability to elected leadership. Career officials set policy, shaped analysis, and, as the country learned during the Russia-collusion saga, sometimes pursued agendas that ran counter to the sitting president's authority. The agencies leaked selectively, briefed selectively, and resisted oversight selectively.
Trump's response is not subtle. He wants fewer people, a loyal acting director, and a free hand to declassify. Whether that amounts to necessary reform or a dangerous disruption of national-security capacity depends on your view of how well these agencies have served the country over the past decade.
For the tens of millions of Americans who watched intelligence officials sign a letter calling the Hunter Biden laptop story Russian disinformation, weeks before a presidential election, the answer is not complicated. The agencies earned this reckoning. The only question is whether the people sent to deliver it are up to the job.
When the permanent class spends years proving it answers to no one, it shouldn't be surprised when a president finally takes the hint.