Top Intelligence Democrat Calls Pulte ‘Worst and Most Dangerous’ Trump Pick
Top Intelligence Democrat calls Pulte worst – Democratic congressman Jim Himes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, delivered a scathing critique on Sunday regarding President Trump’s decision to appoint Bill Pulte as the acting director of national intelligence. Himes, a vocal critic of Trump’s administration, argued that this choice represents a significant threat to the integrity of the intelligence community. His remarks highlight growing bipartisan concerns about the potential politicization of intelligence operations under the new leadership.
The Controversy Surrounding Pulte’s Appointment
Himes is not alone in his criticism. A group of lawmakers from both major parties have condemned the appointment, asserting that Pulte lacks the necessary qualifications to lead the nation’s intelligence efforts. According to Himes, Pulte’s tenure at the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has been marked by aggressive actions targeting Trump’s political adversaries. This has raised alarms about the potential for the director of national intelligence to use their position as a tool for partisan influence.
“There is no way that the intelligence community will be in the hands of an individual who has shown that his sole reason for being in Washington is to do the president’s political laundry,” Himes stated during an interview with CBS News’ Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation.”
During the interview, Himes emphasized that Pulte’s appointment is part of a broader pattern of questionable choices by Trump. He described Pulte as a member of the “basket of awful appointments” the president has made, warning that this decision could lead to a dangerous shift in how intelligence is conducted. Himes called for Trump to reconsider, suggesting that the president might need to find a way to distance himself from the potential fallout of this choice.
The Impact on FISA Renewal
One of the most contentious aspects of Pulte’s appointment is its influence on the debate over Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This provision allows the U.S. government to conduct warrantless surveillance on foreign targets, a critical component of national security operations. Himes pointed out that the renewal of this authority is now at risk due to the appointment of Pulte, who he claims is determined to undermine it.
“He’s not going to like the terrorist attacks that might happen if there is no 702 collection authority,” Himes said, referencing the upcoming deadline for renewing the nation’s enhanced surveillance powers.
The Senate has already taken a firm stance against Pulte’s appointment, with Democrats and several Republican senators uniting to block a motion to begin debate on extending FISA’s surveillance capabilities. This move underscores the growing bipartisan consensus that Pulte’s leadership could jeopardize key intelligence tools. Himes noted that this opposition has also affected support for FISA renewal in the House, where Democratic lawmakers have distanced themselves from the initiative.
“At least half of those Democrats are gone,” Himes explained, “because they will say, ‘Look, I wasn’t very comfortable with this authority to begin with, and we don’t need to get into why it’s controversial, but it is controversial.’” His comments reflect the deepening divide within the party over the balance between national security and civil liberties, a debate that has intensified under Trump’s administration.
Trump’s Defense of the Appointment
Despite the mounting criticism, President Trump has defended Pulte’s role, stating that the acting director will not remain in the position permanently. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump expressed confidence in Pulte’s ability to manage the intelligence community, though he acknowledged a desire to reduce its size. “I’d like to see it smaller,” Trump said, “because I think there are a lot of people in there that shouldn’t be there.”
Trump’s remarks suggest a belief that the intelligence community’s expansion has created inefficiencies, and that Pulte’s appointment is a step toward streamlining operations. However, his allies in Congress argue that Pulte’s experience at the FHFA, where he oversaw the financial oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, equips him to handle the complexities of national intelligence. This rationale, while logical, has been met with skepticism from critics who fear the political motives behind the selection.
Power Dynamics in the Intelligence Community
The office of the director of national intelligence is responsible for coordinating the work of 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). While the DNI holds significant authority, the extent of Pulte’s power to fire officials or influence decision-making at other agencies remains unclear. This ambiguity has sparked debates about whether the appointment grants Pulte sufficient control to reshape the intelligence landscape according to his priorities.
Himes highlighted concerns that Pulte might use his position to prioritize partisan agendas over objective intelligence gathering. “The president needs to sober up,” he said, “because he’s not the only one who can see the risks of this decision.” The congressman’s warning suggests that the intelligence community’s credibility could be compromised if Pulte’s actions are perceived as biased. This risk is amplified by his history of targeting opponents at the FHFA, where he was known for his confrontational approach to regulating financial institutions.
Political Implications and Future Outlook
The controversy surrounding Pulte’s appointment has broader implications for the functioning of the intelligence community. Himes argued that the politicization of key positions could lead to a situation where intelligence operations are driven by partisan interests rather than national security needs. “We’re not just talking about a single appointment,” he said, “but a systemic shift in how decisions are made.”
While the acting director’s term is limited to 210 days, the political impact of this choice may extend far beyond that timeframe. The intelligence community now faces the challenge of navigating a leadership structure that some believe is aligned with Trump’s agenda. Himes and his allies are watching closely to see how Pulte’s tenure unfolds, with the hope that he will either prove his commitment to impartial oversight or be replaced before the 210-day mark.
As the debate over FISA renewal continues, the role of Pulte and his influence on the intelligence community will remain a focal point. His appointment has not only divided the Democratic Party but also reignited discussions about the balance between surveillance capabilities and the protection of individual rights. With the expiration date of Section 702 approaching on June 12, the pressure on Congress to act will intensify, and the outcome of this political showdown could shape the future of U.S. intelligence operations for years to come.
Legacy of the “Basket of Awful Appointments”
Pulte’s selection is part of a larger narrative about Trump’s tendency to appoint individuals with strong political ties to his administration. This pattern has been labeled the “basket of awful appointments” by critics, who argue that many of these selections lack the expertise or neutrality required for national security roles. Himes pointed to this trend as evidence of Trump’s prioritization of loyalty over competence in critical positions.
“The president’s appointees are often chosen for their ability to advance his agenda rather than their qualifications,” Himes said. “This is not just about one person; it’s about a system where the intelligence community is being used as a weapon rather than a tool for informed decision-making.” His comments reflect a broader concern that Trump’s leadership style could lead to the erosion of institutional independence within the intelligence apparatus.
As the nation awaits the results of the FISA renewal debate, the stakes have never been higher. The intelligence community’s ability to operate without political interference will determine the effectiveness of its surveillance capabilities and its role in safeguarding national interests. Himes and other critics remain vigilant, emphasizing the need for a leadership that can uphold the principles of objectivity and integrity in the face of political pressures.
With the clock ticking toward the June 12 deadline, the battle over FISA’s future has become a critical test of the administration’s commitment to transparency and balance. Whether Pulte’s tenure as acting director leads to a crisis or a compromise will depend on how his actions are perceived by lawmakers and the public. For now, the intelligence community stands at a crossroads, with the potential for significant changes under new leadership.
