Key takeaways:
- Jay Clayton, a former SEC chairman and current U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, will need Senate confirmation to become director of national intelligence.
- Bill Pulte’s acting appointment drew criticism because he has no intelligence or military experience and could have served up to 210 days without Senate confirmation.
- The House failed to pass a short-term extension of FISA Section 702, which is set to expire Friday, after backlash over Pulte’s appointment disrupted negotiations.
President Donald Trump said Thursday he will nominate Jay Clayton, a federal prosecutor and former Wall Street regulator, to serve as director of national intelligence after his decision to install ally Bill Pulte in the role on an acting basis drew criticism from Democrats and some Republicans.
Clayton is the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and previously served as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Guardian also reported that Clayton formerly headed Sullivan & Cromwell, a major law firm. If confirmed, he would lead the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees and coordinates 18 intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the National Security Agency.
“I am pleased to announce the Nomination of very Highly Respected Jay Clayton,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, calling him “the former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the former Head of Sullivan & Cromwell” and the current U.S. attorney in Manhattan. “Few people anywhere in the Legal Community are respected at the level of Jay. I encourage the United States Senate to confirm Jay as soon as possible.”
Clayton will need majority approval in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of 100 seats.
The nomination follows mounting pushback over Trump’s selection of Pulte, the 38-year-old director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as acting director of national intelligence after Tulsi Gabbard resigned from the post. Pulte, a Trump loyalist and close political ally, has no intelligence or military experience, Al Jazeera reported. NPR described him as a “political attack dog” and said his appointment sparked concerns among Democrats that sensitive intelligence could be weaponized against Trump’s perceived political rivals.
Democrats had vowed to block foreign intelligence powers if Trump did not name a new director, while some Republicans also urged the president to change course. Because Pulte was chosen only as acting director, he could have served for as long as 210 days without Senate confirmation, according to Al Jazeera.
The dispute immediately affected congressional talks over Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a major surveillance authority that allows U.S. intelligence agencies to intercept foreign communications without a court warrant. The program is set to expire Friday.
On Thursday, the House failed to pass a short-term extension of the program before leaving Washington for a scheduled recess. NPR reported that Clayton’s nomination will not prevent the lapse because lawmakers are not set to return until the week of June 22. The Guardian reported the measure failed 198-218 after Democrats said they would block renewal in protest of Pulte’s appointment, though seven House Democrats voted for it and 19 Republicans opposed it.
House Speaker Mike Johnson criticized the vote, calling it “shameful and very, very dangerous.” He said Democrats voted “to jeopardize the safety and security of the American people to make a cheap political point.”
Trump had also advised Pulte, in a Truth Social post Wednesday, to cut staff at the intelligence office, Al Jazeera reported.
Gabbard, a former Democrat who endorsed Trump before the 2024 election, announced last month that she was leaving the post, citing her husband’s cancer treatment. She had embraced Trump for his anti-interventionist positions and remained a public supporter even as Al Jazeera reported that the U.S. abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro and war with Iran appeared to conflict with her ideological stance.







Be First to Comment