AMNA NAWAZ: The Trump administration# announced yesterday that the Office of## the Director of National Intelligence,# or ODNI, would have its staff cut by## 40 percent for a cost savings, they# say, of more than $700 million a year.

Tulsi Gabbard, the director# of national intelligence,## said -- quote -- "Over the last 20 years,# ODNI has become bloated and inefficient,## and the intelligence community# is rife with abuse of power,## unauthorized leaks of classified intelligence,# and politicized weaponization of intelligence."

The ODNI was created after the# September 11 attacks to better## coordinate the 17 separate intelligence agencies.

To help explain the changes being# made to the intelligence community,## we turn now to Sue Gordon.

She had a# decades-long career at the CIA and was## the principal deputy director of national# intelligence at the ODNI from 2017 to 2019.

Sue Gordon, welcome back to the "News Hour."

So a 40 percent staff cut, what's your reaction# to that?

What kind of impact will that have?

SUE GORDON, Former U.S. Principal# Deputy of National Intelligence: Well,## one, thanks for havi..

When I looked at what's been released, I kind# of had the reaction of, there's some good,## there's some bad, and there's some# dangerous.

So I think the good is,## any organization that's 20 years old,# particularly a staff organization,## you ought to look at it to make sure that it# hasn't grown beyond what it was intended to do.

So I think some of the things I see in there# are well-placed, just make sure that they're as## efficiently done and whether they still need to be# done at the ODNI now 20 years after its formation.

I think what is potentially bad# is, I see no definition of what## the ODNI is going to do.

Like, what's# its mission?

When it was first formed,## it was really to do policy and oversight and# to align the community.

In the middle years,## it was to integrate intelligence, so you had# the best of all the agencies in the product.

And in the years that I was there, we were# trying to do more leadership using the budget## to make sure that we could invest across# the community in artificial intelligence## and make a move to China.

Well, what# is this ODNI going to be?

And if you## don't know what it's going to be and# you're going to cut it by that much,## you run the risk of damaging the foundation of# what you're going to need to support policy.

And the dangerous piece is, I'm pretty on the# record here, I think the predicate for this, that## the intelligence community has become malfeasant# in some way or corrupt or abuse or politicized,## I find that to be completely inconsistent# with my 30-plus years of experience.

And,## more, some of the things they# talk about of aligning it to## a particular view of what the policy# is, is antithetical to intelligence.

And the dangerous piece is,# you actually make it worse.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, let me ask you a little bit more# about that, because one of the core justifications## that Director Gabbard laid out was what she# says, this effort to return to ODNI's core## mission, as she put it, to provide objective# and unbiased intelligence to the president.

She cited specifically the weaponization of# intelligence.

And she also referenced the## intelligence community's assessment# that Russia interfered in the 2016## election with the goal of trying# to help then-candidate Trump win,## which Gabbard says was false.# So what's your reaction to that?

SUE GORDON: Well, I think -- I think that's# a statement being made by this administration## that supports a view that they'd like to# have.

I think this has been reviewed over## and over.

The assessment itself has been# validated not only by DCI Ratcliffe's own## relook at that assessment, that, though# it did find some tradecraft issues,## it did say that the conclusions that Russian# intended to influence our election was valid.

Then the Senate Select Committee on# Intelligence, on which Marco Rubio sat,## had an extensive view that again validated the# Durham report, validated it.

And so I just think## that the information that the administration is# putting out to try and counter it, and, far worse,## the actions they're taking against some really# talented officers in that name, it's dangerous.

But let's just put it in context.# The people who are trying to align## the intelligence meaning to a particular# view seem to be this administration.

But## the issue is, intelligence is the one# discipline that is policy-independent.

What you want intelligence to do is to have# as many views as you can to put down what## is perceived to be the best known collective# information so that the policymaker can decide## on a policy with a really clear view.

When# you start using intelligence and shaping it## to be ahead of time only supportive of policy,# you undermine its value in national security.

AMNA NAWAZ: And we should note there's a number## of specific centers and agencies# being eliminated.. Related to the note earlier you made, there's# one called the Foreign Malign Influence Center## that looks at foreign interference in# American democratic processes.

But,## Sue, can I ask you to step back for# just a moment and kind of assess... SUE GORDON: Sure.

AMNA NAWAZ: ... where we are with this#.. intelligence agencies, because he's# publicly disagreed with them at times.

What is your assessment, based on# your time in government service,## of how President Trump is using the# intelligence that he's being briefed on?

SUE GORDON: Yes, I think one of the# things that people should know is,## intelligence is almost always inconvenient.

I remember walking into a different president's# office and sharing some information, and he said,## you have just stolen some of my decision space,# because the policy is the policy.

Sometimes,## you walk in the door and you# have inconvenient information.

An example, Russia has no intention# of seeking peace right now in Ukraine,## that's inconvenient information that I# would expect this intelligence community,## if it had that, would present the president,## or that the intelligence community finds that Iran# is not imminent in developing a nuclear weapon.

And the president's saying that's wrong.

He can# do whatever he wants with policy.

But it becomes## dangerous when you try and shape the intelligence# to fit the policy you want, because you eliminate## its value to you.

Intelligence is about seeing# what is not what you prefer, and you want it to## be able to walk in, say inconvenient things,# so that it helps the decisions be better.

And I think you can look at the record and# see that, going back to the president's## first administration, where I served, and# now accelerating, and now accelerating the## actions to shape the community so it doesn't# do anything (INAUDIBLE) is a destructive turn.

And it's destructive for the president in# terms of the decisions he wants to make.

AMNA NAWAZ: Sue Gordon, former# intelligence official joining us tonight.

Sue, thank you for your# time.

Good to speak with you.

SUE GORDON: Great to see you again.