Intelligence Restructuring: Gabbard’s Cuts Redefine the ODNI
Executive Summary
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s decision to cut nearly half the ODNI workforce and reduce its budget by $700 million annually marks the most significant restructuring of the U.S. intelligence community since its creation after 9/11. While the cuts could streamline operations and reduce redundancies, they also risk weakening coordination, oversight, and analytical independence. This restructuring reflects both political motivations and a long-term shift toward automation and artificial intelligence in intelligence work.
Key Judgments
The ODNI workforce reduction may improve efficiency but risks critical intelligence gaps.
Evidence: Gabbard characterized ODNI as “bloated and inefficient” while lawmakers like Sen. Tom Cotton praised cuts as a return to its intended size and scope (Federal News Network). Conversely, former CIA and NSA officials warned that slashing staff could undermine coordination, the very purpose for which ODNI was created (Politico).
The dissolution or downsizing of specialized centers will weaken U.S. capacity to track election interference and cyber threats.
Evidence: The Foreign Malign Influence Center, National Counterproliferation and Biosecurity Center, and Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center are being consolidated or shuttered as “redundant,” but experts like Emerson Brooking argue these were specifically designed to resolve redundancy and protect democratic processes (AP; Defense One).
The move reflects political distrust of the intelligence community, further eroding its apolitical credibility.
Evidence: Gabbard framed the cuts as a way to end the “weaponization of intelligence,” a claim tied to past disputes over Russia’s 2016 election interference. Former officials like Sue Gordon warn this framing undermines the objectivity of intelligence and risks shaping analysis to fit political narratives (PBS).
The restructuring is likely in anticipation of increased reliance on artificial intelligence and automated analysis.
Evidence: Semper Incolumem Analysts note that much intelligence work is expected to shift from human-driven processes to AI-enabled agents, which can provide faster and more cost-effective outputs. This aligns with broader Trump-era reforms aimed at cutting federal staff while leveraging automation.
Analysis
The restructuring of ODNI under Gabbard is both a political maneuver and a structural experiment. Politically, it continues a Trump-era narrative portraying the intelligence community as untrustworthy, overly partisan, and resistant to policy. By reducing its size and eliminating centers focused on election security and disinformation, the administration is reframing intelligence priorities in ways that align more closely with partisan narratives about free speech and censorship.
Structurally, the cuts reflect a recognition that the ODNI—created in 2004 to correct the coordination failures revealed by 9/11—has grown into a large bureaucracy vulnerable to mission creep. Supporters argue that reducing redundant offices will make the intelligence community leaner and more agile. However, the loss of specialized centers like the Foreign Malign Influence Center could create blind spots, particularly in the face of ongoing Russian, Chinese, and Iranian information operations targeting U.S. elections and public trust.
The broader context suggests these cuts are not just cost-saving measures but part of a longer-term shift toward intelligence automation. Artificial intelligence and machine learning tools are increasingly capable of sifting through massive volumes of data faster and at lower cost than human analysts. By cutting up to 50% of staff, the ODNI may be setting the stage for AI to take over large portions of analysis, with humans providing oversight rather than conducting the bulk of the work. This transition could eventually make intelligence leaner, faster, and cheaper—but in the short term, it risks gaps in situational awareness and loss of institutional knowledge.
The consequences are twofold. In the near term, the U.S. intelligence community could face reduced capacity to detect and respond to foreign influence operations, cyber intrusions, and emerging asymmetric threats. In the long term, however, if AI integration is managed effectively, the intelligence community may become more efficient and less costly. The risk is that in the process of cutting staff and reshaping missions, the ODNI undermines both its credibility and its ability to provide timely, independent intelligence to policymakers.
