Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, and the struggle to redesign U.S. Counterintelligence
A growing conflict over control of counterintelligence is unfolding in the United States. A new bill, the so-called SECURE Act, would give the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), led by Tulsi Gabbard, full oversight of U.S. counterintelligence operations. The FBI, which until now has played the principal role in this field, warns that the reform „would threaten national security” and would strip the agency of operational independence. The dispute between Gabbard and FBI Director Kash Patel has erupted into an open power struggle: the biggest since the post-9/11 reforms.
In the U.S., according to many media reports, a jurisdictional conflict is underway between the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the FBI. As Yahoo News and The New York Times write, the draft House Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, referred to in the media as the SECURE Act, foresees transferring full oversight of U.S. counterintelligence operations to ODNI. Until now the FBI has played the primary role in this area, possessing both investigative and operational authorities.
According to the bill’s authors on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), the reform is intended to „modernize the counterintelligence system and merge dispersed structures into a single coordination center within ODNI.” In practice, this would be the largest transfer of intelligence authority since 2004, when ODNI was established.
As Yahoo News and The New York Times reported, the FBI sent a letter to Congress expressing „strong opposition” to the reform. The letter (described by the NYT as „classified but unequivocal in tone”) warned that passage of the bill „would cause serious and long-lasting harm to U.S. national security.”
The FBI argues that it has decades of experience detecting espionage and conducting counterintelligence operations on U.S. soil. As Yahoo News notes, the Bureau emphasized that it has more than 50 field offices and specialized CI (Counterintelligence) teams that work with the Department of Justice and local U.S. attorneys.
In its letter to Congress the FBI reportedly posed a key question: „Would conducting counterintelligence investigations in the future require the approval of the Director of National Intelligence, going beyond the Department of Justice’s decision-making chain?” As WION News comments, in practice this would mean the FBI losing operational autonomy.
New "ODNI 2.0" vision
Tulsi Gabbard’s appointment as Director of National Intelligence in February 2025 set off a series of radical reforms quickly dubbed „ODNI 2.0.” As Associated Press reported, Gabbard announced a $710 million budget cut and the elimination of 40% of administrative positions at ODNI headquarters. In her view, this was a necessary step to „end an era of bureaucracy and restore accountability.”
As part of the reorganization, Gabbard curtailed the scope of the National Intelligence University, the Cyber Threat Integration Center, and the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC). The responsibilities of the latter were to be assumed by a newly planned National Counterintelligence Center (NCIC) — an entity written into the SECURE Act draft.
According to Politico, some conservative members of the House of Representatives back Gabbard’s reforms, arguing that „too many agencies operate in silos” and that ODNI should become the „brain of counterintelligence.”
The decision that caused the most uproar was Gabbard’s revocation of 37 security clearances from employees at the CIA, NSA, and the Pentagon — done without prior notification to the White House. As The Guardian revealed, the decision was taken „immediately” and affected officials suspected of „abuse and leaking of information.”
Associated Press cited anonymous CIA officials who called the move a „political purge” and a „dangerous precedent.” ODNI rejected those allegations, saying the action was a „necessary operation to cleanse the institutions of individuals unworthy of trust.” As Defense One noted, Gabbard’s decision „divided the intelligence community” — some officers supported a tough line, while others warned of a „chilling effect.”
Kash Patel vs. Tulsi Gabbard — A personal and systemic clash
The FBI is led by Kash Patel, a former national security advisor to Donald Trump. According to Fox News Digital, Patel and Gabbard remain in an open dispute over the scope of authority.
The first escalation reportedly occurred after Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and a close Gabbard ally, attempted to gain access to FBI files related to an investigation into the killing of activist Charlie Kirk. FBI sources quoted by Fox News Digital said Kent „exceeded his authority,” although the agency later issued a joint statement with ODNI declaring „full cooperation.”
Despite that, the personal conflict between Patel and Gabbard has remained visible. The Daily Mail described it as „the sharpest confrontation within the U.S. security apparatus since the post-September 11, 2001, reforms.”
Thus the dispute over the SECURE Act has exposed a deep political split in Congress. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, led by Congressman Rick Crawford, is pushing the bill that would transfer counterintelligence to ODNI, arguing, as The Washington Times wrote, that too many agencies operate in isolation and respond too reactively to threats from China and Russia. The Senate, where Democrats hold the majority, supports maintaining the FBI’s dominant role.
As Senator Mark Warner, vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Reuters, „ODNI was created to coordinate, not to manage operations. Otherwise it will become a competitor, not a partner, to the FBI and CIA.” According to Intelligence Online, a compromise between the House and Senate could decide the architecture of U.S. counterintelligence for many years to come.
Analysts warn that concentrating too much power in a single office could produce the opposite effect to that intended. As the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) writes, creating a super counterintelligence agency risks decision-making paralysis and the politicization of analytical processes. Intelligence Online adds that placing NCIC within ODNI could lengthen the chain of command and slow responses to incidents in the field.
Defense One warns that removing the FBI’s leading operational role could deprive the U.S. of the capacity for rapid response to internal espionage, which requires working with prosecutors and federal courts. According to experts at RUSI and Intelligence Online, the greatest problem is not the bill itself but the loss of trust between agencies.
As RUSI notes, the intelligence system is built on cooperation, not hierarchy. RUSI adds that if partners stop trusting one another, no reforms will work. Intelligence Online observes that no other democratic country conducts such a public debate about who has the final say in secret matters, and, as they point out, that is what makes the U.S. system both exceptional and fragile.
Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, and Mark Warner represent three different visions for counterintelligence: centralized, operational, and coordinative. Regardless of which model prevails, one thing is certain. The New York Times wrote that the fight over counterintelligence is not just a struggle for influence. It is a struggle over who really guards America’s secrets.
