The Director of National Intelligence position should be eliminated as unnecessary bureaucracy
Source: Tom Nichols. "Where Is Tulsi Gabbard? - The Atlantic." April 25, 2026. www.theatlantic.com
The Gist
Tom Nichols argues that because Tulsi Gabbard has been completely sidelined during the Iran war, it shows the Director of National Intelligence job is pointless. He says this position was created after 9/11 but has only added bureaucracy without actually improving intelligence coordination, so we should get rid of it.
Conclusion
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) should be disestablished and its functions returned to existing agencies because it has failed to achieve its intended purpose and adds unnecessary bureaucratic bloat
Premises
- Tulsi Gabbard's irrelevance during the Iran war demonstrates that the DNI position lacks real influence in critical national security decisions
- The DNI has no operational capacity and relies entirely on other agencies for information and capabilities
- ODNI has created turf wars, structural problems, and duplication of effort rather than unifying the intelligence community as intended
- The CIA Director often has more power and presidential influence than the DNI despite being technically subordinate
- Multiple DNIs have been ineffective, marginalized, or fired, suggesting systemic problems with the position rather than individual failures
- ODNI was created hastily after 9/11 as part of panic-driven reforms that included other problematic bureaucratic expansions like DHS
Assumptions
- Effective national security leadership requires actual operational capacity and direct presidential access
- Bureaucratic structures created during crisis periods are often suboptimal and should be reevaluated
- The pre-9/11 intelligence structure with FBI handling domestic and CIA handling foreign intelligence was fundamentally sound
- Gabbard's failures reflect structural problems with the DNI role rather than just personal inadequacy