The New Orleans Attack and the Bondi, Patel, Gabbard, and Noem Nominations
Reform ambitions meet national security reality
The terrorist attack in New Orleans is a reminder about the reality of national security threats. It is also a wake-up call about the stakes in President-elect Trump’s nominees to run the federal agencies responsible for national security, especially the domestic security elements of national security.
Trump has nominated Pam Bondi as Attorney General, Kash Patel as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and Kristi Noem as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). These agencies together—and the FBI most consequentially—are primarily responsible for keeping the nation safe from threats of the type that materialized in New Orleans yesterday.
These nominees were selected for their loyalty to Trump and agreement with his views. But if confirmed, they will be responsible for keeping the country safe. We have heard lots about their plans to clear out the deep state, reform the intelligence community, and close the border. We have heard much less—hardly anything at all—about how they understand their roles as protectors of national security, or how they would negotiate the complex and fraught but very real problem of homegrown terrorism in all its guises. This should be a central focus of their Senate confirmation hearings.
***
The New Orleans terrorist attack—based on what the public knows as I write these words early Thursday morning—was committed by a U.S. citizen, Shamsud-Din Bahar Jabbar, who was “inspired by” the Islamic State and who might not have acted alone. It thus appears for now to be an act of home-grown terrorism, though the inspiration from the Islamic State, whatever that comes to mean, places it at least at the seams of domestic and international terrorism. (It remains to be seen whether there is an actual connection to a foreign terrorist organization.) Which raises the question: How do the expressed preferences and priorities of the Trump 2.0 candidates to lead national security agencies square with the mandate to protect national, including domestic, security?
FBI. The FBI is the primary domestic security and intelligence agency. Its Director sets its priorities and is responsible for its operations. Patel says he wants to “dramatically limit[]” the “FBI’s authority,” “fire” its “top ranks,” shut down the Washington, D.C. headquarters, “break … out” the FBI’s intelligence operations from its other functions, and curb some of the FBI’s surveillance tools. Patel has also said he wants to “return the FBI to its rightful mission: protecting the American people.” And he has worked in several international terrorism jobs in government and has supported the use of surveillance tools in that context.
I have not seen Patel say anything concrete about the FBI role in tracking and thwarting domestic terrorists, including those inspired by foreign terrorist organizations. How would he approach domestic terror threats, including ones that lack any foreign tie? Would he limit FBI surveillance authorities in this context? How does he think about these questions as they arise at the seams between domestic and international terrorism? Does he worry that separating the FBI’s law enforcement and intelligence functions might recreate the “wall” that the 9-11 Commission said contributed to the 9-11 attacks? Does he worry that wiping out the FBI “deep state” might—like former CIA Director Stanfield Turner’s purge of many hundreds of CIA intelligence officers in the late 1970s—jeopardize national security through loss of experienced personnel?
DOJ. The Attorney General plays a huge role in national security. Among many other things, she supervises and oversees the FBI; sets guidelines for its investigative activities, including domestic security operations; and supervises DOJ components (such as the National Security Division and the Office of Legal Counsel) with national security responsibilities.
Bondi has emphasized investigating and “clean[ing] house” of those in DOJ who were involved in investigations of Trump. It is unclear what this means for the FBI or for the broader DOJ national security mission. I have found no Bondi statements concerning national security, including domestic security, and she has little if any prior experience in these matters. So the Senate will want to know the entire range of her views on national security, including whether she agrees with Patel’s vision for curbing FBI authorities that may impact domestic security for which she and the president are ultimately responsible.
DHS. As the department title suggests, the DHS Secretary is responsible for “homeland security.” Among other things, it collects, analyzes, and shares intelligence related to terrorism threats between state and local entities (among others) and federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Much of this work is done by the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), which is the only component of DHS that is formally within the intelligence community.
Noem has practically no national security experience. She has said a lot about border security—a DHS responsibility—as an element of national security. And has sent South Dakota national guard troops to assist with southern border operations. I have found nothing else on her views about national security, domestic security threats, surveillance authorities, the role of I&A, or the DHS national security portfolio beyond border security. The Senate will want to probe these issues thoroughly.
DNI. The Director of National Intelligence has access to all U.S. intelligence collected by any federal agency and is responsible for providing national intelligence to the president, heads of the departments, and Congress. She thus has overlapping supervisory authority over the FBI, I&A, and all other intelligence agencies. Also, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) is in ODNI. It collects and integrates terrorism-related information from across the intelligence community and provides analytical products about terrorism threats to the community.
Gabbard was in the House of Representatives for eight years, during two of which she served on the House Committee on Homeland Security. In this latter role she would have become familiar with the DHS I&A role in domestic security. Gabbard is an intelligence community skeptic who has in various contexts been critical of domestic surveillance and the label or designation of “domestic terrorism.” It will be important to learn her views on exactly how, as the leader of the intelligence community, she sees her role in keeping the homeland free from New Orleans-style terrorist attacks, including what she thinks about the current surveillance authorities and their use, as well as the current organization of the intelligence community to meet these threats.
***
The intelligence community has for a variety of reasons—some its doing, some not—become a political football over the last decade. It is now in the crosshairs of the new Trump administration, which has pledged fundamental reforms. The reforms are almost all designed to counteract the community’s perceived excesses against Trump. But there has been very little public discussion about how these reforms will impact the national security mission of the large organizations that are critical to keeping Americans safe. It is the Senate’s job to make sure that these issues are elevated. Starting with their confirmation hearings, and especially once in office, the Trump nominees will find their criticisms and reform ambitions checked by the enormous and enormously difficult responsibility of keeping the nation safe.