Donald Trump’s decision to appoint William J.Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as acting Director of National Intelligence has sparked criticism from conservative commentators and some Republican lawmakers.

Pulte, who also oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will retain his existing roles while taking on leadership of the nation’s intelligence community, replacing Tulsi Gabbard after her resignation.The move has drawn concern primarily due to Pulte’s lack of intelligence or national security experience.

Critics across the political spectrum argue that placing an official with no background in intelligence in such a critical position raises questions about the administration’s priorities and the effectiveness of oversight of the U.S.intelligence apparatus.

Prominent conservative commentator Erick Erickson publicly criticized the appointment, calling Pulte one of the weakest members of Trump’s team and accusing him of influencing poor policy decisions.

Some Republican lawmakers, speaking anonymously to media outlets, also expressed skepticism, with one describing him as unfit and another suggesting he was ill-suited for his responsibilities.

Pulte has also been the subject of scrutiny for his actions at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, where he has issued criminal referrals targeting several political figures aligned against Trump, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and Senator Adam Schiff.

These actions have prompted an investigation by the Government Accountability Office into whether he may have misused his authority for political purposes.

Additional criticism has focused on the unusual arrangement of one individual holding multiple high-level federal roles simultaneously, a structure some observers described as undermining the seriousness of the intelligence director position.Analysts and journalists noted that such “dual-hatting” is highly irregular for an office responsible for coordinating national intelligence.

Overall, the appointment has intensified debate over politicization within federal agencies and raised broader concerns about qualifications, institutional stability, and governance within the intelligence community.