Who Advises the President on Intelligence?

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The President of the United States faces life-or-death decisions every day. From responding to overseas crises to preventing terrorist attacks, informed choices depend on accurate, timely intelligence from a network of advisors and agencies.

Three key figures form the core of the President’s intelligence advisory circle: the Director of National Intelligence, who leads the entire intelligence apparatus; the CIA Director, who runs America’s premier spy agency; and the National Security Advisor, who coordinates all national security policy from the White House.

These advisors are supported by 18 intelligence agencies and overseen by an independent board of private citizens.

The Director of National Intelligence: America’s Top Intelligence Officer

What the DNI Does

The Director of National Intelligence serves as the statutory head of the U.S. Intelligence Community and the principal intelligence advisor to the President. This cabinet-level position requires extensive national security expertise and Senate confirmation.

The law explicitly prohibits the DNI from simultaneously leading any other intelligence agency, including the CIA. This ensures the DNI can provide impartial, community-wide leadership without conflicts of interest.

A Post-9/11 Creation

For over 50 years, no DNI existed. Instead, the Director of Central Intelligence served three roles: running the CIA, leading the broader Intelligence Community, and advising the President. This created inherent conflicts as the DCI naturally focused on CIA priorities while trying to coordinate competing agencies.

The September 11 attacks exposed critical flaws in this system. The 9/11 Commission identified failures in information sharing and coordination between agencies as a key vulnerability that allowed the plot to proceed undetected.

The commission recommended creating a single, empowered national intelligence director free from day-to-day agency management. This new leader would control the intelligence budget, integrate programs, and enforce collaboration across the community.

Congress responded with the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. This landmark legislation abolished the Director of Central Intelligence position and established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to lead a more integrated Intelligence Community.

Core Responsibilities

The DNI’s primary function is not collecting intelligence but ensuring the entire 18-agency community works as a unified enterprise.

Leadership and Oversight

The DNI oversees all 18 Intelligence Community elements, promoting collaboration and eliminating waste and unnecessary duplication.

Budget Authority

The DNI’s most powerful tool is control over the National Intelligence Program budget. The NIP funds the DNI’s office, the entire CIA, and strategic intelligence activities across other agencies. This “power of the purse” allows the DNI to enforce priorities and compel integration across the community.

Setting Priorities

The DNI establishes priorities for intelligence collection, analysis, and production, ensuring Intelligence Community efforts align with the President’s most pressing national security concerns. The DNI can create Mission Centers and Functional Managers to focus community-wide efforts on specific threats like international terrorism or cyber warfare.

Presidential Briefing

The DNI coordinates and delivers the President’s Daily Brief, the Intelligence Community’s flagship analytic product that synthesizes the most critical intelligence for the commander-in-chief.

Analytic Integrity

A crucial, legally mandated duty is establishing policies and procedures that ensure “sound analytic methods and tradecraft, independent of political considerations.” This makes the DNI the guardian of objectivity in the intelligence process.

Power Through Influence, Not Command

The DNI’s power is fundamentally bureaucratic and budgetary rather than operational. The 2004 reform was a careful political compromise that created a strong community leader without stripping authority from existing agencies, particularly the CIA and Defense Department intelligence organizations.

The DNI received authority over the community’s budget and priorities but not direct command-and-control over other agencies’ day-to-day operations. The CIA Director, for example, still manages the agency’s collection and covert action programs. This means the DNI must lead primarily through influence, strategic direction, and budget allocation rather than issuing direct operational orders.

Success as DNI depends heavily on personal relationships with the President and the ability to build consensus with other powerful Intelligence Community leaders.

The DNI-CIA Rivalry

This structural change fundamentally altered power dynamics within U.S. intelligence, creating permanent potential for rivalry with the CIA. Before 2004, the Director of Central Intelligence was the undisputed center of the intelligence world. By splitting the DCI’s roles, the reform created two powerful positions where there was once one.

This introduced persistent bureaucratic friction, often described as the “always challenging DCIA-DNI relationship.” The tension became publicly visible during the Obama administration in a dispute between DNI Dennis Blair and CIA Director Leon Panetta over authority to appoint senior intelligence officials overseas.

The relationship is now considered the most important partnership in the Intelligence Community, but one that requires active management and is not automatically harmonious.

The CIA Director: Leading America’s Spy Service

What the CIA Director Does

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency heads the nation’s best-known independent intelligence agency. Like the DNI, the CIA Director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Following the 2004 reforms, the CIA Director formally reports to the DNI regarding agency activities.

Core Responsibilities

While the DNI focuses on community-wide integration, the CIA Director manages the specific, often high-risk functions that give the agency its unique role.

Human Intelligence Collection

The CIA Director has special, community-wide responsibility for “overall direction for and coordination of the collection of national intelligence outside the United States through human sources.” This legally mandates the CIA as the nation’s lead agency for human spying—recruiting foreign assets and stealing secrets.

All-Source Analysis

The CIA correlates and evaluates intelligence from all sources—human, signals, satellite imagery, and more—to produce “finished intelligence” that provides context and predictive analysis for policymakers.

Covert Action

The CIA is the U.S. government’s primary tool for covert action. At the President’s exclusive direction, the agency may conduct operations to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad where the U.S. role is not intended to be publicly acknowledged.

Agency Management

The CIA Director serves as chief executive of the CIA, managing its global operations, personnel, and budget to execute its mission.

Enduring Influence Despite Reporting to the DNI

Despite reporting to the DNI, the CIA Director often retains a powerful, direct advisory relationship with the President. This stems partly from the CIA’s historical prestige and central role in producing the President’s Daily Brief.

While the DNI delivers the PDB, the CIA remains the primary author of articles it contains, giving the CIA Director significant influence over specific intelligence reaching the Oval Office each morning.

Operational Power vs. Statutory Authority

The CIA Director’s power is rooted in operational capability, which can sometimes rival the DNI’s statutory authority. The DNI’s influence comes from budget control and community-wide strategy, but the CIA Director has direct command over tangible intelligence assets: spies on the ground, analysts focused on specific targets, and covert action capabilities.

When a crisis erupts, Presidents inevitably want to know what CIA human sources are reporting and what covert options are available. This operational relevance provides the CIA Director with a direct line to the White House that can bypass or equal that of the DNI.

This dynamic creates a system where the DNI has authority over the community, but the CIA Director wields unique and powerful influence within it, grounded in the agency’s unmatched capabilities in human intelligence and covert action.

The National Security Advisor: The White House’s Honest Broker

A Different Kind of Role

The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, universally known as the National Security Advisor, is a senior White House aide working within the Executive Office of the President. The position was formally established in 1953 under President Eisenhower.

Critically, the National Security Advisor is appointed directly by the President and does not require Senate confirmation. This key distinction makes the role intensely personal to the President, with loyalty directed exclusively to the commander-in-chief rather than to a government department or the legislative branch.

Policy Coordinator, Not Intelligence Producer

The National Security Advisor’s primary role differs fundamentally from the DNI or CIA Director. The NSA does not run an intelligence agency or produce raw intelligence. Instead, the NSA’s core function is managing the national security decision-making process for the President.

This involves chairing the powerful Principals Committee and Deputies Committee meetings of the National Security Council. In these forums, the NSA ensures complex issues are fully debated, that all relevant agency perspectives—from the Departments of State and Defense, the CIA, and others—are heard, and that well-defined policy options are presented to the President for a final decision.

The “Honest Broker” Model

The ideal NSA is often described as an “honest broker,” a term most associated with Brent Scowcroft, who served as NSA for Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. In this model, the NSA’s chief responsibility is running a fair, transparent, and inclusive policy process.

This means accurately representing the views of the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and DNI to the President, even when their positions conflict with one another or with the NSA’s own personal opinion. As one former advisor put it, “You have to be perceived by your colleagues as an honest representative of their viewpoint, or the system breaks down.”

Proximity and Trust: The Source of Power

The NSA’s immense power derives not from statutory authority or control of a large bureaucracy, but from two simple factors: proximity and trust.

The NSA’s office is located in the West Wing of the White House, just steps from the Oval Office. This daily, often hourly, access allows the NSA to frame the agenda, control the flow of paper and people to the President, and shape the President’s understanding of global events in real time.

This makes the NSA arguably the most influential foreign policy and intelligence gatekeeper for the President. While the DNI is the principal intelligence advisor by law, the NSA is often the principal national security advisor in practice.

Because the NSA is a personal staffer whose loyalty is exclusively to the President, the commander-in-chief may place greater trust in the NSA’s synthesis and framing of an issue than in the raw intelligence or entrenched policy positions coming from larger departments. This gatekeeping function can make the NSA more powerful in shaping final decisions than officials who actually produce the underlying intelligence.

The Tension Between Broker and Advocate

There is a fundamental and inherent tension in this role between being an “honest broker” and a confidential policy advocate. This dynamic is not a flaw in the system but a feature that varies with each administration’s management style.

Some Presidents, like George H.W. Bush, preferred the neutral process manager embodied by Scowcroft. Others have relied on more activist NSAs, such as Henry Kissinger under President Nixon or Zbigniew Brzezinski under President Carter, who became powerful policy advocates in their own right.

The danger arises when an NSA moves from advocate to “operator,” using the NSC staff to run their own policies out of the White House, sometimes contrary to public U.S. policy or the law, as was seen during the Iran-Contra affair.

The President’s Intelligence Advisory Board: Independent Counsel

Beyond the inner circle of daily advisors, the President has a unique resource for independent, external evaluation: the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

An Outside Perspective

The PIAB is an independent body within the Executive Office of the President composed of distinguished private citizens appointed by the President. Its members are not current government employees but are selected from among accomplished individuals in fields such as business, academia, law, and former high-level government and military service.

The board’s exclusive purpose is to provide the President with an “independent source of advice on the effectiveness with which the Intelligence Community is meeting the Nation’s intelligence needs.”

History and Function

The board was first created by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 as the President’s Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activities. Eisenhower concluded he needed an outside body of respected Americans to give him “unfettered and candid appraisals” of U.S. intelligence activities, free from institutional bias.

The board has served every President since, with the exception of President Jimmy Carter, who briefly abolished it before it was reinstated by President Ronald Reagan. The PIAB has direct access to the President and is granted access to all information necessary to perform its functions, which include assessing the quality of intelligence analysis, the effectiveness of Intelligence Community management, and the vigor with which the community plans for future threats.

A Presidential Check on the Intelligence Community

The very existence of the PIAB serves as a presidential check on the institutional power and potential insularity of the professional Intelligence Community. As the ultimate consumer of intelligence, the President needs a mechanism to audit and question the massive, secret bureaucracy that provides it.

The Intelligence Community is a closed world with its own culture, assumptions, and biases. The DNI and CIA Director are insiders who lead that world. The PIAB, by contrast, is composed of outsiders who can provide an external “sanity check.”

By giving this board full access to information and a direct line to the Oval Office, the system provides the commander-in-chief with a tool to ask: “Is my own intelligence community giving me the full, unvarnished picture? Are they performing effectively?” It is a vital instrument for the President to manage this critical part of the executive branch.

The Intelligence Oversight Board: Legal and Ethical Watchdog

A critical component of the PIAB is the Intelligence Oversight Board. The IOB was created by President Gerald Ford in 1976 in response to recommendations from the Rockefeller Commission, a high-level panel that investigated past intelligence abuses by U.S. agencies.

The IOB’s specific mission is to oversee the Intelligence Community’s compliance with the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, and executive orders, ensuring the “legality and propriety” of all intelligence activities. It complements, rather than duplicates, the oversight roles performed by Congress and agency Inspectors General.

Democracy’s Challenge: Secret Operations vs. Civil Liberties

The IOB’s role reflects the enduring tension in a democracy between the need for secret intelligence operations and the imperative to protect civil liberties. Its creation in the 1970s, a period of intense public and congressional scrutiny of intelligence overreach, was a structural acknowledgment that secret activities carry a high risk of crossing legal and constitutional lines.

By placing this oversight function directly under the President via the PIAB, the system creates a direct line of accountability. The IOB is charged with advising the President on any intelligence activities it believes may be “unlawful or contrary to Executive Order or Presidential Directive,” ensuring that the ultimate responsibility for the legality of secret operations rests with the President, informed by this independent board.

The Intelligence Community: 18 Agencies Working as One

The individual advisors are the public face of a much larger and more complex apparatus. This engine consists of the 18 agencies of the Intelligence Community and its flagship product, the President’s Daily Brief.

A Federation, Not a Monolith

The Intelligence Community is a federation of 18 distinct organizations and agencies within the executive branch. Its collective mission is to collect, analyze, and disseminate the intelligence necessary for the conduct of foreign relations and the protection of U.S. national security.

The Intelligence Community is not a single, monolithic entity. Its members are housed within various cabinet departments—including Defense, Justice, State, Energy, and Homeland Security—in addition to independent agencies like the CIA and the DNI’s office itself.

The President’s Daily Brief: The World’s Most Exclusive Newspaper

The President’s Daily Brief is a top-secret daily summary of high-level, all-source intelligence and analysis covering the most critical national security issues facing the country. It is produced for the President and a very small number of approved senior officials, such as the Vice President and the Secretaries of State and Defense.

Due to its extreme sensitivity and exclusive readership, it has been described by intelligence scholar Christopher Andrew as the world’s “smallest circulation, most highly classified, and—in some respects—best informed daily newspaper.”

A Community-Wide Product

The PDB is coordinated and delivered by the DNI’s office, but it is a community-wide product, fusing intelligence from the CIA, DIA, NSA, FBI, and other agencies. The writing and editing process is notoriously rigorous, designed to produce concise, impactful articles that provide the President with everything he needs to know on a given topic.

Reports are often structured with the “bottom line up front” (BLUF) to be understood quickly.

Evolution of the PDB

The PDB’s lineage dates back to 1946, when President Harry S. Truman began receiving a “Daily Summary.” The modern brief took shape under President John F. Kennedy in 1961.

Finding existing intelligence reports overwhelming and dense, Kennedy requested a short, concise pamphlet that could fit in a breast pocket. The CIA created the “President’s Intelligence Checklist” (PICL, pronounced “pickle”) to meet this need. The document was formally renamed the President’s Daily Brief during the Johnson administration.

The delivery method has also evolved. For most of its history, the PDB was printed on paper and presented in a leather binder. In 2014, at the request of President Barack Obama, it transitioned to electronic delivery on a secure tablet computer.

More Than Just a Report

The PDB is more than just an intelligence report; it is a primary instrument of influence and a daily reflection of the President’s personal relationship with the Intelligence Community. The content—what is included, what is omitted, and how it is presented—directly shapes the President’s daily focus and perception of global threats and opportunities.

The fact that the PDB’s format and briefing style have been tailored to each President’s personal preferences—from Kennedy’s checklist to George W. Bush’s preference for oral briefings—demonstrates that it is a dynamic tool, not a static product.

For this reason, the internal competition among agencies to get an article into the PDB is intense, as it represents a direct line of communication to the most powerful person on Earth.

Common Questions About U.S. Intelligence

The world of intelligence is often shrouded in secrecy and myth. Here are clear, factual answers to some of the most common questions about the U.S. Intelligence Community.

What’s the Difference Between the CIA, FBI, and NSA?

While often grouped together in the public imagination, these three agencies have distinct missions, jurisdictions, and methods:

CIA (Central Intelligence Agency): The CIA is a civilian intelligence agency focused on foreign intelligence. Its primary mission is to collect information from human sources abroad (HUMINT), conduct all-source analysis on foreign threats, and, at the direction of the President, carry out covert actions overseas. The CIA has no law enforcement powers and is legally prohibited from conducting intelligence operations within the United States.

FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation): The FBI is a national security organization with both intelligence and law enforcement responsibilities. Its focus is primarily domestic. The FBI investigates federal crimes within the U.S., including espionage, cyber attacks, and terrorism. It is the lead agency for counterintelligence, responsible for identifying and neutralizing the actions of foreign intelligence services operating inside the United States.

NSA (National Security Agency): The NSA is a Department of Defense agency with two principal missions: signals intelligence (SIGINT) and information assurance (IA). The SIGINT mission involves collecting and analyzing foreign communications and other electronic signals. The IA mission involves protecting U.S. government information systems and communications from foreign adversaries. The NSA does not collect intelligence from human sources.

Does the CIA Legally Spy on American Citizens?

No. By law, the CIA is specifically prohibited from collecting intelligence concerning the “domestic activities of US citizens.” Its mission is focused on foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence.

Under strict procedures approved by the Attorney General, the CIA is restricted in collecting information directed against U.S. citizens. Such collection is permitted only for authorized intelligence purposes, such as when there is credible reason to believe an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities on behalf of a foreign power. These legal restrictions have been in effect since the 1970s.

The NSA is bound by similar legal prohibitions and oversight regarding the collection of information on U.S. persons.

What Is the “Intelligence Cycle”?

The intelligence cycle is the process through which raw information is converted into finished intelligence and provided to policymakers. It is a fluid, six-step process that operates as a continuous loop:

Requirements: Policymakers (like the President or the NSC) pose questions and set priorities.

Planning & Direction: The Intelligence Community develops a plan to answer these questions.

Collection: Raw data is gathered using various methods, such as human intelligence (HUMINT), signals intelligence (SIGINT), or open-source intelligence (OSINT).

Processing & Exploitation: Raw data is converted into a usable format (e.g., translating foreign languages, decoding signals).

Analysis & Production: Intelligence analysts assess, evaluate, and interpret the processed data, adding context to produce a finished intelligence report.

Dissemination: The finished intelligence product (like an article in the PDB) is delivered to the policymaker.

Feedback from the policymaker on the finished product often generates new questions, restarting the cycle.

Is the Intelligence Budget Secret?

Partially. Since 2007, the Director of National Intelligence has publicly disclosed the top-line budget figure for the National Intelligence Program each year. However, the specific budgets for individual agencies (like the CIA or NSA) and the detailed programmatic spending within those budgets remain classified for national security reasons.

The entire intelligence budget is subject to rigorous review and authorization by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and the congressional intelligence and appropriations committees.

How It All Works Together

The President’s intelligence advisory system is designed around a fundamental principle: no single person or agency should have a monopoly on information that shapes life-and-death decisions. The DNI provides community-wide integration and budget authority. The CIA Director brings operational capabilities and human intelligence. The National Security Advisor offers process management and personal counsel. The PIAB provides independent oversight and external perspective.

This distributed system creates both strengths and tensions. Multiple perspectives reduce the risk of groupthink and institutional bias. But it also creates potential for conflicting advice, bureaucratic rivalry, and coordination challenges.

The system’s effectiveness ultimately depends on the President’s management style and the personal relationships among these key advisors. When these relationships work well, they provide the President with comprehensive, well-vetted intelligence and policy options. When they break down, they can create dangerous gaps in America’s national security decision-making process.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.