An Open Letter to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard
Reform with purpose, not disruption.
By Brian O’Neill
Congratulations. You now lead a workforce unlike any other—one defined by dedication, discretion, and an unwavering commitment to the country. The U.S. intelligence community’s mission extends beyond any administration, upheld by professionals whose expertise and objectivity are unparalleled.
You take on the director’s role at a time of transition and uncertainty for the intelligence community. There is an expectation—both within the agencies you oversee and among policymakers—that reforms will be made. But these reforms need to be deliberate—targeted adjustments that separate necessity from political convenience, safeguard the nation, and preserve the intelligence community’s efficacy.
The American people recognize the intelligence community could benefit from a well-intentioned, deliberate assessment. But such support isn’t rooted in mistrust, nor does it reflect your claim at your swearing-in that trust in intelligence is "at an all-time low."
In reality, public confidence in the intelligence community has remained stable—higher than trust in Congress or the Supreme Court. According to a 2023 survey:
• In 2021, 60% of Americans said the intelligence community plays a “vital role.”
• In 2022, 56% maintained that view despite partisan attacks.
• In 2022, only 5% believed the intelligence community was “no longer necessary.”
These numbers don’t reflect an institution in crisis but rather demonstrate that the public still recognizes intelligence as a pillar of national security.
What has changed is not the intelligence community’s performance but how partisan politics shape perceptions. Republican support dropped from 71% in 2020 to 51% post-election, while Democratic support rose from 66% to 73% in 2021—reflecting political shifts rather than intelligence performance.
The crisis isn’t politicization but the growing tendency to view intelligence through a partisan lens—a critical distinction as you consider reforms. The public supports measured, apolitical improvements that enhance efficiency without compromising the mission.
If meaningful reform is your goal, you’ll find no opposition from the workforce or former professionals, including me. Though some will resist, many recognize that thoughtful reforms can strengthen rather than weaken the intelligence community.
A potential area for reform lies in the structure put in place when the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was formed. For example, the National Counterterrorism Center, established after 9/11 to improve coordination, has been redundant from the start. Its poor implementation—marked by bureaucratic resistance, unclear mandates, and overlapping responsibilities with the CIA, FBI, and DHS—only deepened its inefficiencies.
The question isn’t whether counterterrorism remains a priority but whether this structure ever fulfilled its intended purpose. A deliberate review could determine whether the center—an agency in which I served a senior executive role—should remain the primary analytical hub for counterterrorism, whether its responsibilities should be consolidated elsewhere, or whether a more integrated approach would better serve national security.
Any examination of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, including entities such as the National Counterterrorism Center, should focus on whether it effectively manages key intelligence functions or contributes to unnecessary duplication. The goal is targeted reform that improves efficiency without undermining essential capabilities.
Redundancies exist across the intelligence community, making streamlining important—but equally pressing is the need to expand open-source intelligence. Despite being long recognized as vital, it remains poorly integrated as a core discipline.
Over the years, the intelligence community has taken incremental steps toward improvement—most recently with the Open Source Intelligence Strategy for 2024–2026, which calls it the “INT of First Resort”—yet progress has been limited, and the discipline has not reached its full potential.
Efforts remain fragmented and underfunded, lacking the structure to elevate open-source intelligence beyond a supplementary role. Dispersed across agencies, it is inconsistently prioritized. Without a dedicated entity for collection, exploitation, technology development, and analysis, the intelligence community relies on ad hoc solutions rather than a unified strategy.
The solution isn’t just better coordination; it requires a fundamental shift: creating an independent agency to centralize open-source collection and analysis. Unlike current compartmentalized efforts, this agency would be designed for flexibility and speed to exploit public information at scale.
Creating a new intelligence entity without careful planning carries significant risks. To avoid the pitfalls encountered in establishing the National Counterterrorism Center, any standalone open-source center must have clear statutory authority, strong leadership, and dedicated personnel from the outset. Without these foundations, it risks becoming another marginal initiative, sidelined by competing classified priorities.
A structured approach to open-source intelligence will only be as effective as its supporting technology. Though private companies integrate new capabilities in months, the intelligence community’s procurement system takes far longer—sometimes years—to field critical advancements. If we are to be prepared for the challenges of cyber threats, AI competition, and rapidly evolving adversary capabilities, bold action is needed to fix what has been a failing system for decades.
Government acquisition has long been slow, but with emerging technologies defining strategic advantage, business as usual is no longer an option. Former CIA Deputy Director for Digital Innovation Jennifer Ewbank has acknowledged that the government’s procurement system “can’t move quickly enough” to match technological innovation, delaying critical capabilities.
Reforms must focus on shifting acquisition strategies toward outcome-based contracting, accelerating security clearance approvals for key industry personnel, and expanding remote work capabilities for unclassified and select classified tasks.
But speed cannot come at security’s expense—our adversaries will exploit vulnerabilities. Speed and security must go hand in hand; prioritizing one alone is ineffective and potentially dangerous. You can streamline procurement without sacrificing security, ensuring critical technologies are available when needed—not years later.
The question isn’t whether to reform but how to strengthen intelligence without disruption. The community isn’t resistant to change, but past politically driven[3] reforms have often done more harm than good.
Change must be deliberate, targeted, and grounded in intelligence realities.
You can lead reforms that strengthen the intelligence community, ensuring professionals have needed tools and structures. The challenge: balance agility with rigor, efficiency with security, and modernization without instability.
Your approach to reform will define your tenure. Done with clarity and purpose, it can leave the intelligence community stronger, more capable, and ready for evolving threats.
I wish you the best of luck.
Brian O’Neill, a retired senior executive from the CIA and National Counterterrorism Center, is an instructor on strategic intelligence at Georgia Tech.
These would be good suggestions for a Director of National Intelligence who works for the USA but Gabbard, like the rest of this administration, works for Putin.
Thank you for taking the time to write this thoughtful, hopefully helpful letter. I wait with bated breath to see how Ms Gabbard responds to your informed suggestions for reform.