Transcript: Rep. Jim Himes on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” June 7, 2026
Transcript: Rep. Jim Himes on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 7, 2026
Transcript - On June 7, 2026, Face the Nation featured a segment with Rep. Jim Himes, a Democrat representing Connecticut, discussing recent developments in intelligence leadership. The interview, hosted by Margaret Brennan, delved into the implications of President Trump’s decision to appoint Bill Pulte, the former head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), as the next Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Himes expressed concerns about the timing and qualifications of the nominee, highlighting bipartisan tensions over the move.
Appointment and Security Concerns
Margaret Brennan opened the discussion by introducing Himes, emphasizing his position as the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. She noted that Pulte’s nomination had sparked significant debate, given his prior role in the FHFA and the political stakes of his potential new position. Himes acknowledged the transition but quickly pivoted to scrutinizing Pulte’s suitability for the intelligence role.
“Congressman, President Trump appointed Bill Pulte as the next Director of National Intelligence. The President said it’s temporary, but even in that acting role, he could serve for over 200 days without congressional approval. Pulte himself was Senate-confirmed for the FHA job. Three Democrats supported his nomination. Do you know if he has a security clearance for intelligence work?”
Himes responded by framing the issue as a matter of trust and expertise. “That’s a very narrow question, Margaret,” he began. “I’ve heard a senator claim Pulte lacks a security clearance, but that’s almost beside the point. He doesn’t have a single shred of national security experience, and yet the President is placing him in one of the most critical roles in the intelligence community.”
He then drew a parallel between Pulte’s past actions and his potential future influence. “You pointed out that he was confirmed for a relatively obscure position at the FHFA. But that job became a platform for him to target the President’s political adversaries, like Adam Schiff and Letitia James. Now, we’ve got more insight into Bill Pulte’s character, and the controversy stems from his defining trait: his willingness to prioritize political interests over national security.”
“The intelligence community’s resources and authority are in his hands,” Himes continued. “And this is the kind of individual who would use those tools to serve the President’s agenda, no matter the consequences.”
Congressional Response and FISA Timing
Brennan pressed further, asking whether Congress could intervene to block Pulte’s appointment. “The President said he wants Pulte to investigate the 2020 election. At this point, is there anything Congress can do to prevent him from assuming this role?”
“You haven’t asked about it yet, but this Pulte nomination has created bipartisan outrage,” Himes replied. “You saw the public criticism from my Republican colleagues. The President’s timing is questionable—he moved forward with this just 10 days before the expiration of FISA 702, our most vital and contentious surveillance authority. I heard Senator Warner call it throwing a grenade into a fragile situation.”
Himes emphasized the gravity of the lapse in FISA 702, a program that enables the collection of foreign intelligence from electronic communications. “At a time when Iran is considering operations abroad, possibly even within the U.S., the President is choosing a candidate who has shown a clear bias toward partisan goals. This is probably the worst intelligence appointment I’ve seen in my career,” he stated.
He also addressed the challenges of reauthorization. “The Senate failed to move forward with reauthorizing FISA 702 yesterday. The only hope now is that the President admits this was a mistake and replaces Pulte with someone who isn’t just a political operative,” Himes argued. “This appointment leaves the intelligence community’s core capabilities vulnerable, especially when we’re dealing with adversaries actively seeking to undermine our security.”
Bipartisan Outrage and Reauthorization Efforts
Brennan acknowledged the Senate’s letter from Republican chairs of the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, warning of a potential lapse in surveillance capabilities. “How do you overcome this? It sounds like plans are in place for the key surveillance tool you’ve called so essential to simply disappear.”
“Yes, I saw the letter from Tom Cotton and Chuck Grassley,” Himes said. “At one level, they’re recognizing the reality that Pulte’s nomination has derailed the reauthorization process. We passed a bill in the House with 42 Democrats, but half of them are now saying they weren’t comfortable with the authority to begin with. And that’s the crux of the issue—FISA 702 is controversial, but with Pulte, the controversy becomes a tool for political maneuvering.”
Himes criticized the nomination as a strategic move to weaken oversight. “The President’s decision to appoint someone with a clear agenda to lead the intelligence community is a calculated risk. This individual has already demonstrated a pattern of using his position to attack political opponents. If he’s in charge, the intelligence authorities might be compromised, and the risk of abuse grows exponentially.”
He also highlighted the urgency of the situation. “FISA 702’s expiration is just days away, and the intelligence community can’t function without it. We need this tool to monitor threats, from foreign adversaries to domestic actors. Pulte’s appointment not only risks the program’s continuity but also its integrity.”
Brennan noted the bipartisan nature of the backlash, asking how the administration could justify such a move. Himes reiterated his stance, underscoring the stakes. “The intelligence community is at a crossroads. This appointment represents a shift toward political loyalty over expertise. We’re not just losing a chance to extend FISA 702; we’re losing trust in the system that safeguards our national security.”
As the interview concluded, Himes left his audience with a clear message: the President’s choice of Pulte as DNI is a significant step toward eroding the checks and balances that define effective intelligence oversight. “The only way forward is for the President to acknowledge this as a misstep,” he said. “Otherwise, we’re handing over the keys to our most sensitive intelligence tools to someone who may not be worthy of the trust they require.”
Context and Implications
The debate over Pulte’s nomination reflects broader concerns about the politicization of intelligence roles. FISA 702, a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, allows for the collection of data from American citizens abroad, making it a critical asset in counterterrorism efforts. However, its expansion has been a point of contention, with critics warning of overreach and potential violations of privacy rights.
Himes’ comments align with a growing chorus of lawmakers who fear that Pulte’s leadership would prioritize political agendas over objective intelligence. His experience in the FHFA, where he was involved in investigations targeting the President’s opponents, has raised eyebrows. While his housing agency role was seen as a departure from the mainstream, the potential for him to leverage the DNI’s authority for partisan purposes has drawn sharp criticism from both parties.
With the Senate’s reauthorization efforts stalled, the pressure on the White House intensifies. Himes’ assertion that Pulte’s appointment represents a “worse timing” for the intelligence community underscores the strategic risks of the decision. As the 200-day window for Pulte’s tenure looms, the urgency to address concerns about his qualifications and loyalty becomes more pressing.
Ultimately, the conversation highlights a fundamental challenge: maintaining the independence of intelligence agencies in an era of political polarization. Himes’ call for the President to backtrack on Pulte’s nomination serves as a reminder of the importance of securing the intelligence community’s trust and effectiveness. The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether this appointment sets a dangerous precedent or if a swift correction can be made to protect national security interests.