Trump appoints Bill Pulte as Acting DNI despite 'no apparent intel experience': Dilanian

[0:00] So, Ken, Pulte is a business executive. He's a staunch Trump ally. Does he have [0:05] any experience for this role as acting DNI? Another day, Ana, another jaw-dropping [0:13] announcement from Donald Trump. No intel experience that we're aware of or that is [0:18] apparent from his resume. He's 38 years old. As you said, he's been involved in making criminal [0:24] referrals about mortgage fraud regarding some of Donald Trump's political foes, [0:29] including Representative Adam Schiff and Letitia James, the attorney general of New York. [0:35] And in the Truth Social Post announcing this appointment, Donald Trump said he didn't [0:39] reference any intelligence experience. He said that William has deep experience managing the [0:43] most sensitive matters in America, the safety and soundness of markets. I don't know what to say to [0:50] that. There is a provision in the law that requires the director of national intelligence to have [0:55] significant intelligence experience. A lot of Democrats believe that Tulsi Gabbard didn't [1:00] qualify for that, but at least Tulsi Gabbard had been a military officer, had some foreign affairs [1:06] experience. You know, this was a post that was created after 9-11, an office designed to connect [1:13] the dots, to stitch together the various strands of intelligence. It has really fallen out of grace, [1:19] particularly in the Trump administration. There are people now that think that it should be [1:22] disbanded, essentially. The CIA is playing the primary role in both gathering and analyzing and [1:28] pulling together intelligence in the Trump administration. And now you have Donald Trump [1:32] appointing this person with no, not only no intelligence experience, no apparent foreign policy [1:36] experience to this role in the acting capacity. It's just another strange day in the Trump [1:42] administration. I think that's why we are all asking why, Jake. What went into this decision [1:48] behind the scenes there at the White House? And why have him do two jobs? [1:54] Yeah, I mean, to echo Ken there, what we can't say definitively is really point to any expertise in [1:59] terms of national intelligence that Pulte may have. What we can say confidently is that Bill Pulte has [2:04] positioned himself as someone who is an incredibly loyal individual to Donald Trump, which we know [2:09] in this administration carries significant weight. Look, he was chairing the—he was head of the Federal [2:15] Housing Finance Agency, nothing to do with national intelligence. But repeatedly, Pulte, throughout [2:20] Trump's second administration, has very publicly pushed for the prosecution of some of Trump's [2:25] enemies. One of those most famously was Letitia James. He did that from the Oval Office months back. [2:31] Officials say that Pulte has positioned himself in a way that he talks with Trump regularly. He's [2:36] someone that has very privately and publicly been incredibly loyal to President Trump. This is also [2:41] someone who officials say has sometimes angered folks within the Justice Department because of [2:46] how publicly he has pushed for the weaponization of political enemies of President Trump, despite [2:51] any really routine evidence being clearly stated there. So this is something that what we don't know [2:56] at the moment is, is this a plan for the president to eventually move him to appoint him to a full-time [3:01] position? Of course, that'll be incredibly difficult for him to get that confirmation necessary. But this [3:07] is something that the president, in the meantime, it seems, believes is going to help him get the [3:11] information he wants quicker from within the government. And to your question, too, I'll just [3:16] add about having him, you know, serve as the head of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, while also national [3:22] intelligence necessarily hasn't stopped Trump and other pieces of his administration. Marco Rubio, [3:28] as we know, actively holding three roles right now. So it's unclear the foolproof strategy of President [3:33] Trump right now. But this is someone who is loyal to Trump. We know how much weight that carries in [3:38] this administration. That's right. And Rob, as Ken mentioned, Tulsi Gabbard was already a [3:42] controversial pick in this role. And now Trump has chosen someone who is at the center of his effort [3:47] to use executive power to target his perceived political adversaries. Is that going to rebuild [3:53] confidence within the intelligence community? No, not at all. You know, the people who've been [4:00] working this, been working it for decades and their entire lives. And you see someone come in that has [4:04] absolutely zero experience. As Ken said, Tulsi wasn't even really considered qualified for the [4:11] job. But she was a military officer. She had time on the Hill. And that's important because ODNI is a [4:17] coordinating over 18 different agencies, over 100,000 people involved in it. The people who run those [4:23] agencies are still going to be the experts. And the people on the Hill are going to go to those people [4:28] and not him because they know. But I think what you saw down in Georgia when Tulsi Gabbard was at a [4:34] criminal search warrant for voting information from Fulton County showed that she was willing to do [4:40] certain things. And I think the loyalty is the biggest thing. And why you have someone doing two [4:45] jobs is you can't find enough loyal people that will do anything to fill them. I think that's why [4:50] Mark Rubio is doing three. And now he's going to be doing two. It just it takes confidence out of [4:56] ODNI position. I think it is a position that doesn't need to be there any longer. It was an offshoot from [5:03] 9-11. And him filling it just kind of shows that it really is in a position that anyone needs to be [5:09] in that has any experience. Well, we know also this is a president who likes to have acting whatever, [5:16] right? The big roles filled by acting folks because they don't need confirmation. And it gives him a [5:22] little bit more room, I guess, to sort of do as he will. Rebecca, Pulte took this relatively low [5:30] profile role as the director of the Federal Housing Agency and turned it into this notorious [5:37] sort of position by targeting Lisa Cook and Adam Schiff and Letitia James with these mortgage fraud [5:44] investigations. And now to put him in charge of the entire U.S. intel apparatus, does that raise [5:51] any concerns for you about how he'll wield this power? Yeah, absolutely. It does. I mean, [5:56] politicization is dangerous from multiple perspectives, and it always threatens in a [6:01] certain way the expertise that comes out of the agency and also faith in whatever fact finding. [6:07] And in this particular context, I think that's especially concerning because national security [6:11] is at stake and also democratic principles, because somebody in this position, if they were [6:15] to truly wield their power, could ultimately direct national intelligence against political enemies, [6:22] essentially sort of targeting groups within the United States that are dissenters. And that [6:28] obviously threatens basic democratic values about dissent and the value of people being able to speak [6:34] out against the particular government. And I don't know whether that's part of the purpose of this [6:39] appointment, but it's certainly a concern one would have if he actually managed to gain control over [6:44] this vast mechanism. And this timing, of course, is all interesting. Any reaction there on the Hill, [6:50] Michael, from Republicans, would he have any support to be confirmed in this role permanently? [6:56] We haven't heard anything yet, Ya'ana. Obviously, this is still a developing story. Folks are still [7:00] funneling into the building. But certainly, if President Trump tries to install Bill Pulte in a [7:05] permanent position, in a permanent way for director of national intelligence, he could face an uphill [7:13] battle. That's because you're certainly not going to get any democratic support, given the fierce [7:17] pushback we saw to those mortgage fraud referrals, also the fact that he hasn't served in an [7:22] intelligence position. But you could also face some issues with Republicans. The first stop [7:26] that his nomination would be would be the Senate Intelligence Committee. It's made up of nine [7:30] Republicans and eight Democrats, which means that if just one Republican votes against advancing his [7:36] nomination, that could block him from advancing. And you have two Republicans that I'll be keeping a [7:41] close eye on on that panel. Susan Collins, the moderate Republican from Maine, who is, of course, [7:46] no stranger to breaking from President Trump. She doesn't ever shy away from criticizing him. [7:51] And then you also have John Cornyn, who's sort of now untethered from the political atmosphere and [7:56] the political pressures that come as being a Republican up on Capitol Hill, given he just lost his [8:02] primary, did not get President Trump's endorsement. Cornyn is also on the Senate Intelligence Committee, [8:07] so we'll certainly be looking for those two in addition to others to see how they feel about [8:11] this nomination. Because again, if President Trump were to push Bill Pulte in a permanent [8:16] capacity, he would first have to face the Intelligence Committee. Susan Collins and John [8:20] Cornyn could hold this up. Right. He's already facing a lot of pushback on Capitol Hill over [8:25] another issue. And I can't help but wonder if this is to detract from that other issue involving his [8:32] nearly $1.8 billion DOJ settlement fund. And Jake, we're learning that the administration is dropping [8:39] the plan for this fund. Is it gone for good? Yeah, it's a good question, because what we do know is [8:46] that the president has been privately behind the scenes looking to potentially drop this fund for [8:51] the past few days now, even though it was only announced by the Department of Justice a couple of [8:55] weeks ago, something Trump knew was going to be wildly unpopular and, to be clear, was wildly [9:00] unpopular, even amongst congressional Republicans who pushed back privately and publicly. This is [9:05] something that also top Trump aides, according to White House officials that spoke to my colleague [9:09] Jackie Alamany, say was not something that they could get behind. This was something really tough [9:13] to defend publicly. To the question of, is it gone for good? I think there's a little devil in the [9:19] details there that's still unclear, because whenever we reach out to the White House to clarify, is this [9:24] dead altogether, this weaponization fund to the tune of $1.8 billion? They point us to [9:29] the Department of Justice's statement that came out yesterday, where they clarify that they disagree [9:34] with that district judge's court ruling, but say instead they're going to adhere to the court. That [9:39] court hearing date is going to be on June 12th. And so if the White House plans to fight the courts [9:44] here, that's something that's still unclear. But what we're being told at this moment from White House [9:48] officials is, for now, the weaponization fund is dead. But that, for now, is really key. [9:53] Yeah. Rebecca, we don't really know at this point what it means for the other part of this [9:57] settlement deal, which was this immunity from any ongoing tax audits for Trump and his family and [10:04] his businesses. So we're still working on the reporting on that. But how do you see this? [10:09] Because there was the revived court proceedings over this whole IRS lawsuit to begin with, [10:16] and how this settlement fund came to be. Will any of that legally proceed? [10:22] You know, it's quite confusing, because in a certain way, this is sort of extra legal. It's [10:26] outside of the legal system, because it doesn't adhere to our normal expectations of how a settlement [10:31] ought to function, how a court case ought to function. We don't normally have, you know, [10:36] a party, essentially Donald Trump, suing his own DOJ for having done something back when he controlled [10:44] the Department of Justice. Very confusing. So when you have, what you have is courts trying to apply [10:49] their normal processes to an abnormal situation, which makes any kind of prediction sort of difficult. [10:55] But it seems to me like these cases will probably proceed, because there hasn't been any official [11:01] action that undermines the case in front of them. [11:04] So a judge could decide to see it through and ultimately determine whether there was ethical [11:11] or other types of violations? [11:14] They could, unless there's some kind of more official dropping of the case. I mean, essentially, [11:19] what the government has said is so unclear that they're adhering to that. Well, of course, [11:24] one normally adheres to a court's decision. So what does that mean? If that means you're actually, [11:29] you know, dropping your position, well, that is something different. And I'm not exactly sure how [11:35] that would procedurally go forward. But that's not exactly what they said. They just said they're [11:39] adhering. So if you adhere to a court decision, then the court simply moves forward with what's [11:45] going on. If you're adhering and you're no longer contesting, then that's a different story. But [11:50] the language is vague here. And it's a little bit hard to figure out what that means from a legal [11:54] perspective.