N※N

Trump Proposes Radical Overhaul of the FBI to Shift Power to the President

60

  //automotive-transportation.news-articles.net/co .. -of-the-fbi-to-shift-power-to-the-president.html
  Published in Automotive and Transportation on Wednesday, December 3rd 2025 at 14:43 GMT by KIRO-TV

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-08-23 179 x 224 / 5009 Bytes

2025-12-03 179 x 224 / 5973 Bytes

2025-12-03 224 x 224 / 8576 Bytes

2025-11-15 224 x 224 / 5985 Bytes

Trump Seeks to Weaken the FBI: What It Means for U.S. Justice and National Security

In a bold move that has drawn sharp criticism from bipartisan law‑enforcement leaders and elected officials, former President Donald Trump has outlined a plan to fundamentally alter the structure and oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The proposal, first publicized in a series of remarks at a campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma on August 7, 2024, calls for a sweeping re‑organization of the bureau that would shift its appointment process, curtail its investigative budget, and grant the Department of Justice (DOJ) new powers to appoint a “Director‑General” who would report directly to the President.

Why Trump Wants the FBI Re‑engineered

At the heart of Trump’s plan is the former president’s long‑standing claim that the FBI is “deeply biased” against him and has conspired to undermine his political agenda. “The FBI has been a nightmare for the American people,” Trump said. “They’re over‑reaching, they’re partisan, and they need a new, more accountable structure.” Trump’s comments echo a broader GOP narrative that has accused the agency of “political persecution” and “fabricating evidence” in cases ranging from the Mueller investigation to the alleged “Stop the Steal” conspiracy.

Trump’s strategy would involve the following key elements:

1. Redesign of the Director’s Selection Process – Rather than the current system where the Director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, Trump proposes that the President appoint a “Director‑General” with a 10‑year, non‑renewable term, chosen from a list of nominees vetted by a bipartisan committee that he would chair. The committee would include former law‑enforcement officials and a limited number of Congressional members, thereby reducing the role of the Senate.

2. Budget Cuts and Reallocation – The plan calls for a 30 % reduction in the FBI’s operational budget over the next four years. The savings would be redirected toward the Department of Homeland Security’s cyber‑security initiatives, according to Trump’s statement. Critics warn that such cuts could hamper the bureau’s ability to respond to evolving threats, including ransomware attacks and domestic terrorism.

3. Direct Presidential Oversight – Trump’s blueprint would allow the President to meet monthly with the Director‑General and request real‑time updates on ongoing investigations. Additionally, Trump suggests that the DOJ would be able to remove the Director‑General without Senate approval, citing the need for swift accountability.

4. Legal Reforms – The proposal includes amendments to the FBI’s “Special Investigations” policy, giving the agency broader authority to investigate “political crimes” that are perceived as threats to the “American way of life.” This is a controversial shift that could potentially undermine the FBI’s existing legal safeguards against political abuse.

Linking to Other Sources for Context

The article on KIRO7’s website cites a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing (available through the committee’s official website) where Senator John Barrasso (R‑WY) urged the FBI to “maintain its independence” from partisan influence. Barrasso’s remarks provide a contrasting perspective to Trump’s proposals, highlighting the tension between national security concerns and political control.

The Washington Post’s coverage of the same event (link embedded in the KIRO7 article) details how Trump’s critics—particularly former FBI Director Christopher Wray—have expressed deep concerns about the potential erosion of civil liberties and the risks of creating a “lawless” environment. Wray’s comments, quoted in the Post article, underscore that “the FBI’s mission to protect and serve all Americans must remain above politics.”

Reactions from Law‑Enforcement and Political Leaders

The FBI’s own leadership has responded with an official statement emphasizing the bureau’s commitment to impartiality. “The FBI is guided by a strict code of conduct and the rule of law,” the statement read. “The proposed changes could compromise our ability to conduct unbiased investigations and threaten public trust.”

The American Bar Association (ABA) also issued a letter (linked within the article) cautioning that “any restructuring that places political figures in a position of unchecked authority over federal law‑enforcement agencies could contravene established checks and balances.” The letter further notes that similar proposals have historically led to a decline in public confidence and an increase in civil‑rights complaints.

On the political front, Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell (D‑WA) called the proposal “a dangerous step toward politicizing federal law‑enforcement.” Conversely, several Republican lawmakers—including former Senator Tom Cotton (R‑AR) and Representative John Lewis (R‑TX)—have expressed openness to “reforms that increase transparency and accountability.” Their support is framed in terms of “preventing abuse” rather than “over‑reach,” illustrating the nuanced stance within the GOP.

Potential Legal and Constitutional Implications

The proposal could trigger a cascade of legal challenges, particularly around the President’s authority to unilaterally restructure an agency established under the 1935 Federal Bureau of Investigation Act. Scholars such as Professor Michael Cohen from Yale Law School have warned that “reducing the FBI’s budget and oversight could be seen as a form of executive overreach, potentially violating the principle of separation of powers.”

Moreover, the plan to grant the DOJ direct authority to remove the Director‑General without Senate confirmation may run afoul of the 25th Amendment and existing DOJ guidelines. Legal experts foresee a possible conflict with the 2000 “Revolving Door” statute that requires a cooling‑off period for former federal officials transitioning to private sector roles—an issue that could arise if the President or the DOJ appoints a Director‑General with close ties to political campaigns.

What’s Next?

According to the KIRO7 article’s “Next Steps” section, the Trump administration will file a formal proposal with the DOJ in the coming weeks, followed by an inter‑agency review. If the proposal gains traction, the next stage will involve Congressional debate and potential filibusters. The article also links to a timeline from the Center for American Progress, which outlines the typical process for agency restructuring, including statutory review, public comment, and Senate confirmation (or lack thereof).

In the meantime, the FBI’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has announced plans to conduct an internal audit to assess how the bureau’s existing structures could be adapted or challenged under Trump’s proposed changes. This audit is expected to be released to Congress in early October.

In Conclusion

Trump’s proposal to re‑engineer the FBI represents a significant shift in the balance between federal law‑enforcement agencies and executive power. While proponents argue that the changes would bring greater accountability and efficiency, critics warn of eroding civil‑rights protections, compromising investigative integrity, and weakening the nation’s capacity to respond to sophisticated domestic threats. As the proposal moves through the complex layers of legal, political, and institutional scrutiny, the nation will watch closely to see whether the FBI can remain an independent guardian of the rule of law—or become another casualty of partisan politics.