Bill Pulte, the acting director of national intelligence, has spent his final days on the job celebrating his efforts to terminate employees in his office.
But current and former officials said few people have actually been fired in recent weeks from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, despite a flurry of social media posts by Mr. Pulte. And members of Congress have been left scratching their heads about whether Mr. Pulte has cut nearly as many employees as he has claimed.
Mr. Pulte said on Tuesday, hours before the Senate confirmed his replacement, Jay Clayton, that he had reduced the staff at his organization by nearly a third since taking the job of spy chief in June.
“Good News! In addition to the Historic DECLASSIFICATIONS (Transparency!) by the President, we are, this morning, Executing a 5th and Near Final Round of TERMINATIONS, an approximately 30% Staff Reduction from Weeks Ago,” Mr. Pulte wrote in an X post that mimicked President Trump’s social media patois. “The Intelligence Community must protect the American people, NOT the political whims of the bloated and corrupt elite class.”
But Mr. Pulte’s office has provided no details or explanations of the purported cuts, sowing doubts on Capitol Hill.
Mr. Pulte, who also oversees a federal housing agency and has pursued campaigns of retribution against Mr. Trump’s perceived enemies, lacked any national security experience before he was tapped to run the spy office.
“The acting D.N.I. has been quick to announce firings and make public claims about them, but has so far declined to provide the Senate Intelligence Committee with the information necessary to assess the accuracy of those statements or the basis for those decisions,” said Rachel Cohen, a spokeswoman for Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the committee.
Mr. Pulte has not laid out the goals of his purported reductions. A spokeswoman for Mr. Pulte did not respond to questions about his social media posts.
But several former U.S. intelligence officials expressed disbelief about the claim of reductions. They said Mr. Pulte was counting people whose tour of duty at the office was complete and were returning to their home agencies as previously planned. He also appears to be counting unfilled positions at the National Counterterrorism Center and other parts of the spy office as terminations, former officials said.
Still, current and former officials said, the elimination of jobs and returning officers to their home agencies have hit hardest at the National Intelligence Council, a group that reviews the conclusions of a variety of spy agencies.
In many respects, the council is a core part of the spy chief’s office, developing authoritative analytic judgments supported by a variety of intelligence agencies, while guarding against groupthink.
Last year, Tulsi Gabbard, the previous director, fired the head of the council in a dispute over intelligence about a Venezuelan gang. She also eliminated the council’s Strategic Futures Group, arguing its work was at odds with Mr. Trump’s policies.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence had about 1,700 employees when Ms. Gabbard announced in May that she was stepping down, including around 1,300 full-time government employees and 400 contractors.
Mr. Pulte initially put a handful of close aides to Ms. Gabbard on administrative leave, allowing them to find other jobs in the government. He also directed about 75 intelligence officers who formally worked for other spy agencies, like the C.I.A., the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency or others, to return to those agencies.
Julia Curlee, a former longtime C.I.A. analyst who left the agency this year, criticized Mr. Pulte’s efforts to cut intelligence professionals as a performance intended to please Mr. Trump that may have long-term consequences for America’s spy agencies.
“The bill will come due in low morale and in Americans who now won’t apply,” said Ms. Curlee, who served on the White House National Security Council during the first few months of the second Trump administration. “Congress should demand to know what this is meant to achieve, and which national security functions will go unperformed.”
