The New York Times reports:

The F.B.I. informed Congress last week that it “strongly” opposed a proposal to make the Office of the Director of National Intelligence the lead counterintelligence agency for the federal government, bringing into public view a rift among top national security officials.

The disclosure, made in a pointed and unusual letter obtained by The New York Times, underscored the broader concern at other agencies, including the F.B.I., over a House bill that would empower Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, to play a more prominent role in counterintelligence issues.

It also appeared to be an effort to undercut Ms. Gabbard, who planned to endorse the change in a separate letter, given that the bill would step into what has typically been the bureau’s purview.

The F.B.I. letter was the latest example of tensions between Ms. Gabbard and her counterparts at other intelligence agencies, including the director of the F.B.I., Kash Patel. A bid by Joe Kent, a top Gabbard ally who leads the National Counterterrorism Center, to investigate the circumstances of the conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s killing had already raised alarms at the F.B.I., after Mr. Kent went so far as to examine the bureau’s files.

The House and Senate are negotiating over a final version of an intelligence policy bill, known as the Intelligence Authorization Act, and the proposal to overhaul counterintelligence operations, including the level of Ms. Gabbard’s involvement, remains one of the main sticking points, congressional officials said.

The F.B.I., in its letter, described the draft letter from Ms. Gabbard’s office as saying that the entire intelligence community supported the proposals that would give it primacy on counterintelligence issues.

Ms. Gabbard’s letter has not been sent to lawmakers, and The Times has not seen the draft. Officials from her office have shared their views on the proposal with the Office of Management and Budget, according to a person briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations.

Before weighing in on pending legislation, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence normally collects responses from various intelligence agencies, then sends a single letter to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. An intelligence official claimed that Ms. Gabbard’s draft acknowledged that agencies, including the F.B.I., disagreed with the proposed changes.

The F.B.I. letter is unsigned, but administration officials said it would not have been sent without the approval of Mr. Patel. It pushes back against a handful of counterintelligence functions that Ms. Gabbard would effectively take over, using language like “vigorously disagrees with” and “strong objection.” One of the changes, the letter said, would “cause serious and long-lasting damage to the U.S. national security.” [Continue reading…]