The turf wars between Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel

American  Thinker 

Over the past few days we witnessed the deepening of the turf wars between Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and Kash Patel, Director of the FBI.

Tulsi Gabbard is trying to bring counterintelligence — the catching of spies and leaks — under her umbrella, and out of the FBI. Naturally, Patel and the FBI are against it, holding on to the control of counterintelligence.

Gabbard has been able to get some support among House Republicans who have stated that the brain of counterintelligence should move under Gabbard. Others point out that the White House is not open to this change, yet. President Trump has been displeased with Gabbard’s stance on Iran, which differs from his, and it is not clear how Gabbard can get on Trump’s good side to get the political support she needs right now.

It might be time for change. The changing national security landscape necessitates a fresh approach, and Tulsi Gabbard might be the one able to deliver on precisely that. Her recent comments that regime change is a thing of the past for the U.S. signals that she is able to bring new style leadership to national security. Gabbard deserves a chance to run counterintelligence.

Reports from June revealed that President Trump might be looking to close Gabbard’s agency, the ODNI. The institution was created post-9/11 to coordinate the intelligence agencies. Trump is considering change and it is not clear where that leaves Gabbard. Her ambitions to head counterintelligence might be a way for her to ensure political survival. The ODNI is a much smaller institution in comparison to the CIA, for example. Gabbard may be trying to expand her influence with this move.

FBI Director Patel reportedly sent Congress a letter last week to strongly object against Gabbard’s proposal on the ground of concerns for national security. The FBI argued that it has decades of experience in fighting foreign espionage.

Counterintelligence is the geopolitical function of the FBI. There is an argument to be made here that the FBI should stick to law enforcement and not deal with foreign policy. That’s why it’s not self-evident that counterintelligence should stay under the FBI instead of another institution. Senate Democrats have accused Gabbard of creating turf battles and competition, instead of cooperating with the FBI.

Gabbard has also created a turf war with the CIA by revoking the security clearance of several employees.

The next weeks will be crucial to determine whether counterintelligence would stay under the FBI. That discussion is not over.