A fierce battle for control has erupted between Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and the CIA over who gets to shape President Donald Trump's daily intelligence briefings during a critical period of war with Iran.
According to the Daily Mail, Gabbard has moved to take physical control of the President's Daily Brief (PDB) away from CIA headquarters in Langley and relocate it to her own office, causing major friction within the intelligence community.
The power struggle comes at a particularly sensitive time as the U.S. faces mounting tensions with Iran following missile strikes on American bases, requiring careful coordination of intelligence to inform presidential decision-making. Intelligence officials say Gabbard's assertive move challenges the CIA's traditional dominance over what classified information reaches the president's desk each morning.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has confirmed that staff who oversee the President's Daily Brief will be transferred from CIA headquarters to ODNI facilities. This marks a significant shift in how America's most sensitive intelligence is curated and delivered to the commander-in-chief.
Senior intelligence officials tell the Daily Mail that Gabbard's move has caused major ripples within the CIA's Directorate of Analysis, which has long controlled the systems used to compile the classified briefings. The transfer essentially wrests physical control of the PDB away from Langley for the first time.
While CIA Director John Ratcliffe maintains a cabinet-level position, Gabbard's role overseeing all 18 intelligence agencies gives her ultimate authority over intelligence coordination. This has created natural tensions between the two powerful agencies vying for influence over presidential briefings.
Gabbard's assertive play for control comes as she maintains nearly constant contact with President Trump regarding intelligence matters during the ongoing conflict with Iran. Sources say she has been present for every key meeting since hostilities began.
The DNI's office argues that housing PDB staff under their authority better aligns with their mission to integrate foreign, military and domestic intelligence from across agencies. They believe this will produce more comprehensive briefings rather than allowing CIA dominance.
Some intelligence veterans worry the organizational shuffle could disrupt the flow of critical information during an active military conflict. However, others say consolidating control under ODNI may actually improve coordination across the intelligence community.
The CIA has traditionally wielded enormous influence through its central role in producing the President's Daily Brief, which began under President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. Their Directorate of Analysis maintained the classified systems needed to compile these sensitive reports.
While the 2004 Intelligence Reform Act officially put the DNI in charge of overseeing the PDB, the CIA retained significant practical control through its institutional capabilities and expertise. Gabbard's move to physically relocate PDB staff challenges this decades-old arrangement.
Some CIA veterans argue their agency's analytical capabilities and access to human intelligence sources make them best suited to lead the presidential briefing process. However, ODNI officials counter that their broader perspective across all intelligence agencies produces a more comprehensive analysis.
The White House finds itself navigating delicate internal dynamics between two powerful intelligence chiefs during a period of military conflict. Officials say both Gabbard and CIA Director Ratcliffe remain key presidential advisors on Iran.
Internal sources suggest the power struggle reflects natural institutional tensions rather than personal conflicts between the intelligence leaders. The ODNI's statutory authority to coordinate across agencies supports Gabbard's move to consolidate control of presidential briefings.
This inter-agency friction occurs as President Trump relies heavily on intelligence briefings to inform critical decisions about military engagement with Iran. The outcome of this bureaucratic battle could shape how America's commander-in-chief receives vital national security information for years to come.
