
The reorganization of the intelligence shop, which would require congressional approval in upcoming appropriations talks, would mark the most significant change to the office to date, following efforts made last year to sharply scale it back. 400tmax/Getty Images
DHS plans major intel shake-up, but its intelligence office would still be overseen by the nation’s spy chief
A proposed FY27 overhaul would still leave DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis answerable to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, despite questions about its oversight.
A significant White House plan to fold the Department of Homeland Security’s primary intelligence unit into DHS headquarters for the coming fiscal year would not affect its oversight under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, an administration official told Nextgov/FCW.
The new reporting structure, unveiled last week in the president’s FY27 budget request, would combine the Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the department’s Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, Management Directorate and Office of Situational Awareness into a single unit reporting to the DHS secretary.
But I&A would still be considered a member of the intelligence community, said the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss the changes.
“The planned, internal DHS structural changes noted in the president’s budget submission will not impact I&A’s membership in the [intelligence community] and will not impact ODNI’s oversight over I&A as a member of the IC,” the administration official said.
I&A’s status as an official U.S. intelligence component under the budget proposal has not been previously reported. ODNI, led by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, manages the nation’s 18 spy agencies.
The intent to keep I&A under ODNI management could be a reprieve for lawmakers and stakeholders concerned about future oversight of the office. The reorganization of the intelligence shop, which would require congressional approval in upcoming appropriations talks, would mark the most significant change to the office to date, following efforts made last year to sharply scale it back.
I&A was slated for major workforce reductions in President Donald Trump’s second term, as Nextgov/FCW first reported last July. Those plans, which would have only kept some 275 people working at the office, drew major pushback from law enforcement organizations and Jewish groups that long relied on the agency to disseminate timely intelligence about threats that concern state, local, tribal and territorial communities. One international organization privately warned Congress that the proposed cuts would create “dangerous intelligence gaps.”
The downsizing was put on hold just days later, but I&A reignited efforts soon after to more gradually shed its workforce. As of late last year, the office had around 500 full-time employees, a figure that preserved more staff than the initial plans to cap the workforce at 275, though that still halved the 1,000-person operation in place earlier last year. It’s possible that more people have since departed.
The office falls within the purview of the Senate and House Intelligence committees, but its status as a DHS component also subjects it to oversight from the Homeland Security panels in both chambers.
In November, Nextgov/FCW reported that the House Intelligence Committee privately weighed a measure in the annual intelligence community authorization bill to significantly curtail the size and scope of I&A. The provision would have barred the office from gathering and analyzing intelligence, effectively turning I&A into a clearinghouse for intelligence findings produced elsewhere and stripping it of standard spy agency collection authorities.
As part of its mission, I&A helps manage a series of fusion centers around the country that facilitate intelligence sharing between federal agencies and state and local law enforcement, raising questions about stakeholder engagement under the proposed restructuring.
I&A was born as part of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to coordinate intelligence on homeland threats and expand information sharing with state and local authorities. For years, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have sought to reform the unit amid concerns about domestic overreach and partisanship.
Its placement in DHS has put it at the center of recurring jurisdictional tensions with the FBI, which drives much of the nation’s domestic intelligence, counterterrorism and counterintelligence work under the Justice Department.
To securely contact the reporter for this story, he can be reached on Signal via username djd.99
NEXT STORY: Why the federal government needs to stop obsessing over process




