Office of Director of National Intelligence to be Downsized
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) will be “reduced in its size and budget,” DNI James R. Clapper Jr. told the House Intelligence Committee last week (pdf).
“We, I think, all understand that we’re going to be in for some belt-tightening. And given, you know, the funding that we have been given over the last 10 years since 9/11, that’s probably appropriate,” DNI Clapper said on February 10.
“Shortly after I became DNI, exactly six months ago today, I began a thorough review of the organization. I examined the intelligence reform law, other statutes and executive orders, and the activities that they direct the DNI to execute,” he said.
“Upon review, I decided to reduce or eliminate functions not required by law or executive order that are not core missions of the DNI. I also identified elements that should transfer out of the ODNI to another agency who would serve as the executive agent on my behalf and carry out these services of [common] concern on behalf of the ODNI. In other words, we don’t need to do everything on the DNI staff itself.”
“Based on this efficiencies review, the Office of the DNI is being reduced in size and budget,” DNI Clapper said. The details of the reduction remain to be spelled out.
See, relatedly, these updated Congressional Research Service reports on intelligence (all pdf).
“Director of National Intelligence Statutory Authorities: Status and Proposals,” January 12, 2011.
“Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Acquisition: Issues for Congress,” January 20, 2011.
“Intelligence Authorization Legislation: Status and Challenges,” January 20, 2011.
“Satellite Surveillance: Domestic Issues,” January 13, 2011.
“The National Intelligence Council: Issues and Options for Congress,” January 10, 2011.
“Intelligence Estimates: How Useful to Congress?”, January 6, 2011.
These ideas aim to advance the detailed policy solutions needed to foster public trust and implement fairness in the adoption of AI across diverse domains, from healthcare and government benefits to rural access, education, and worker protections.
The evidence is clear: algorithmic pay-setting is established in app-based work, and payroll/timekeeping failures show how software can produce systemic wage harm at scale
While a few states have taken steps to implement decision-making mechanisms for certain AI systems, too many leaders are simply accepting narratives about AI’s purported public benefit at face value – jumping to the “how” of AI implementation before thoroughly vetting potential systems and deciding whether they are appropriate to use at all.
When properly structured — with specific numeric targets, secured financial obligations, independent monitoring, and meaningful enforcement — CBAs transform data center deals into durable community partnerships.