The intelligence reform legislation of 2004 abolished the position of Director of Central Intelligence, transferring many of its functions to the new Director of National Intelligence.
This raised a technical legal question as to whether the DCI who was serving at the time, Porter J. Goss, would need to be formally reappointed to the position of Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (DCIA).
The question was analyzed at length by the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in a January 2005 memo that has just been released.
To cut to the chase, the OLC concluded “that when the Intelligence Reform Act takes effect the then-current DCI would not require a new appointment to serve as DCIA.”
See “Status of the Director of Central Intelligence Under the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004,” Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, January 12, 2005 (published January 23, 2006).
By preparing credible, bipartisan options now, before the bill becomes law, we can give the Administration a plan that is ready to implement rather than another study that gathers dust.
Even as companies and countries race to adopt AI, the U.S. lacks the capacity to fully characterize the behavior and risks of AI systems and ensure leadership across the AI stack. This gap has direct consequences for Commerce’s core missions.
The last remaining agreement limiting U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons has now expired. For the first time since 1972, there is no treaty-bound cap on strategic nuclear weapons.
As states take up AI regulation, they must prioritize transparency and build technical capacity to ensure effective governance and build public trust.