On August 20, 2025, the U.S. intelligence community was rocked by the most sweeping internal shakeup since the days after 9/11, as Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard unveiled a plan to slash her office’s workforce by more than 40% and eliminate several high-profile units. The overhaul, which Gabbard described as overdue and essential, marks the first major restructuring of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) since its founding in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Gabbard’s announcement, made from Washington and widely reported by Reuters and other outlets, outlined a dramatic reduction in staff and a shift in the agency’s core focus. "Over the last 20 years, ODNI has become bloated and inefficient, and the intelligence community is rife with abuse of power, unauthorized leaks of classified intelligence, and politicized weaponization of intelligence," Gabbard said in a statement quoted by Reuters. She made it clear that the status quo was, in her view, unsustainable: "The overhaul is required so ODNI can focus on its core mission: find the truth and provide objective, unbiased, timely intelligence to the president and policymakers."
When Gabbard took the helm at ODNI, the office employed about 1,800 people. According to Federal News Network, which tracks developments in the federal workforce, she had already reduced staff by roughly 25% by August 22, 2025—about 500 positions gone. Now, she’s set to cut an additional 40% of the remaining workforce by October 1, 2025. The result? Annual taxpayer savings of over $700 million, beginning when the government’s fiscal year ends this fall.
But the changes go beyond simple headcount. The restructuring eliminates the Foreign Malign Influence Center, a unit created to monitor and counter foreign efforts to sway the American public. According to a fact sheet cited by Reuters and other news organizations, Gabbard believes this function is already handled by other U.S. intelligence units, making the center redundant. Also on the chopping block are units tracking weapons of mass destruction and cyber threats, as well as a group responsible for producing long-range forecasts of global trends. In each case, Gabbard and her team argue that the work is duplicated elsewhere in the sprawling intelligence community, which encompasses 18 agencies.
The ODNI was established in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, with the intent to coordinate intelligence across agencies and prevent the kind of communication breakdowns that left the country vulnerable. Over the years, though, critics—now including Gabbard—have argued that the office became unwieldy, slow, and sometimes politicized. Gabbard’s rationale for the cuts leans heavily on this critique, asserting that a leaner ODNI will be better equipped to fulfill its original mandate.
Notably, Gabbard’s announcement comes amid ongoing debates about the politicization of intelligence in the United States. She has accused former intelligence officials and others of involvement in what she described as a "manufactured and politicized assessment" that Russia sought to influence the 2016 presidential election in favor of then-candidate Donald Trump. The ODNI played a central role in drafting the findings about Russian interference—findings that were later confirmed by bipartisan Senate intelligence committee reports and a review ordered by then-CIA Director John Ratcliffe. The office also oversaw assessments that Russia used online influence operations to try to sway the 2020 and 2024 presidential votes toward Trump, though Russia has continued to deny all such allegations.
Gabbard’s accusations have stirred controversy, especially among those who see the intelligence community’s work as crucial to safeguarding American democracy. Her critics argue that the bipartisan confirmations of Russian interference, and the subsequent reviews, underscore the seriousness and legitimacy of the original findings. Supporters, meanwhile, echo her concerns about bureaucratic bloat and the potential for intelligence to be used as a political weapon.
The Trump administration, which preceded Gabbard’s tenure, also sought to shrink the federal bureaucracy, making sweeping cuts to a range of agencies. In that sense, Gabbard’s moves are part of a broader trend in Washington toward streamlining government operations and reducing perceived redundancy. Whether these cuts will deliver the promised efficiencies—or inadvertently undermine critical intelligence functions—remains to be seen.
For those inside ODNI, the past months have been marked by uncertainty and upheaval. The office’s mission—to provide objective and timely intelligence to the president and policymakers—remains unchanged on paper, but the tools and personnel available to fulfill that mission are being radically reshaped. Gabbard insists that the changes will allow ODNI to "focus on its core mission" and reduce the risks of abuse, leaks, and politicization that she says have plagued the agency in recent years.
According to the official ODNI fact sheet, the elimination of the Foreign Malign Influence Center and other specialized units is justified by the presence of similar capabilities elsewhere in the intelligence community. The fact sheet argues that these redundancies have contributed to inefficiency and confusion, rather than enhancing national security. Still, the move has its skeptics—some former intelligence officials and lawmakers worry that the closures could leave gaps in the nation’s defenses against evolving threats, particularly in the digital and disinformation realms.
Gabbard’s critics also point to the timing and framing of her accusations regarding Russian election interference. The ODNI’s own findings about Russian influence were not only confirmed by the Senate but also subjected to additional scrutiny by the CIA. While Gabbard maintains that these assessments were politicized, her detractors argue that the evidence for interference was robust and that dismissing the findings risks undermining public trust in U.S. intelligence.
On the other hand, proponents of the overhaul argue that a leaner, more focused ODNI will be less susceptible to bureaucratic inertia and internal politics. They contend that streamlining the agency will free up resources for frontline intelligence work and reduce the opportunities for leaks and misuse of classified information.
As the October 1 deadline for the cuts approaches, the broader intelligence community is watching closely. The fate of the eliminated units—and the staffers who once filled their ranks—remains uncertain. Some may be absorbed by other agencies, while others will likely face layoffs or early retirement. The $700 million in annual savings is a significant figure, but the true cost of the restructuring will only become clear over time.
Gabbard’s overhaul of the ODNI is, without question, a watershed moment for the U.S. intelligence community. Whether it leads to a more nimble and effective agency or exposes new vulnerabilities is a question that will preoccupy policymakers, analysts, and the public for years to come.
