ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE — President Donald Trump said Friday that he wants his new acting director of national intelligence, Bill Pulte, to cut the office, which has already been significantly scaled back during his second term.

Trump noted that the size of the office has been “way too high for way too long” and that “if he cut, I wouldn’t mind that.”

“He’ll do a very good job,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One as he traveled to Wisconsin for an event on agriculture. “He’ll watch it closely, but Bill Pulte is very good, he’s very talented.”

The Republican president said in an earlier interview with The Wall Street Journal that he has asked Pulte to start the process of firing employees. In the interview, Trump said he has already conveyed his view to Pulte, who has served as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency but has no apparent national security expertise.

“I’d like to see it smaller. I think there are a lot of people in there that shouldn’t be there,” Trump said, which the Journal said was in reference to intelligence community officials who had served in the Democratic administrations of Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

Trump told the Journal that he wants Pulte to “start the process” of firing personnel and that the eventual permanent director of national intelligence should continue it. The president has indicated that he would not formally nominate Pulte for the position.

“Frankly, it might be good for him to shake it up before people come,” Trump said. “Because, if he (Pulte) reduced the size, in conjunction with me … and in conjunction with possibly the person coming in … he can do a lot of the hard work and we wouldn’t have to saddle somebody that goes in.”

Pulte was tapped by the president earlier this week in a surprising move that has been met with bipartisan resistance in the Senate, which confirms presidential nominations. The temporary appointment has now snarled the renewal of a critical national security surveillance program on Capitol Hill, with Democrats key to the vote pointing out that they did not trust Pulte — whose office oversees 18 intelligence agencies — to help administer the surveillance program.

Trump told reporters on Air Force One that Pulte will stay in the position depending on how long it takes to get his successor confirmed. The president also said he was considering five people who were “all very good, all people that you know very well, all people that do that kind of thing.”

“They’re very respected people,” Trump said of his intelligence candidates, without naming them.

Under Pulte’s predecessor, Tulsi Gabbard, the DNI office had already taken steps to scale back its size. In August, the Trump administration said that the office’s budget would be cut by more than $700 million per year, while slashing the size of its workforce.

At the time, Gabbard said the office had become “bloated and inefficient” while she announced the roughly 40% workforce reduction.

Gabbard resigned last month after revealing her husband’s cancer diagnosis.

BOSTON — A federal judge has struck down a Trump administration policy enacted after the shooting of two National Guard members that made it harder for immigrants from dozens of countries to stay and enter the country.

In a ruling harshly criticizing the administration, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. said the policy “threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo,” and he accused the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of ignoring the law.

The policies, enacted after the National Guard shooting last year, meant that immigrants from dozens of countries 39 have been “categorically barred” from receiving final decisions on, among other things, their asylum and work permits green card.

Judge strikes down immigration policy

BOSTON — A federal judge on Friday struck down a Trump administration policy enacted after the shooting of two National Guard members that made it harder for immigrants from dozens of countries to stay and enter the U.S.

In a ruling harshly criticizing the administration, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. said the policy “threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo,” and he accused the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of ignoring the law.

“In enacting its latest immigration policies, USCIS: claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations that it must provide; acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of ‘national security’ that mask anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making,” he wrote. “In legal terms that means USCIS’s actions are contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The policies enacted after the National Guard shooting last year meant that immigrants from 39 African, Asian, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries have been “categorically barred” from receiving final decisions on, among other things, their asylum, work permit, green card, and citizenship applications.

“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs in the case. “These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum-seekers, and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections, or move forward with their lives.”

The policies apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or USCIS, which approves applications for immigrants to work and become citizens. The agency, which is within the Homeland Security Department, often grants asylum, but only for those already in the United States when they apply. Immigration judges grant asylum to those stopped at the border; the ruling does not affect them, nor do the policies that sparked the lawsuit.

The broad ruling would impact all pending cases at USCIS involving people from the travel ban countries, not just those included in the lawsuit, Shev Dalal-Dheini, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

“It is an important legal victory to ensure that legal immigration pathways remain open and that USCIS is held accountable to doing their congressionally mandated job of adjudicating applications,” she said.

It is part of an ongoing effort by the administration to tighten U.S. entry standards for travel and immigration, which critics say unfairly prevent travel for people from a broad range of countries. The administration suggested it would expand the restrictions after the arrest of an Afghan national suspect in the shooting of two National Guard troops over Thanksgiving weekend.

In its motion to dismiss, which the court denied, the government argued that Congress gave the executive branch broad authority over immigration policy, including “the entry of aliens into the United States as well as discretion within the statutory scheme to confer as well as withdraw various discretionary benefits.”

“This case rests on a remarkable premise: that a federal court should prevent an agency from issuing the very policy guidance that provides government personnel with the guardrails necessary to ensure consistent, non-arbitrary, and individualized decisionmaking consistent with federal law,” the government wrote in its brief.

Immigration groups celebrated the ruling.

“This ruling sets a powerful precedent that the administration cannot ignore the law as laid down by Congress and cannot arbitrarily bar immigration benefits on the basis of national origin by fiat,” Jamal Abdi, president at the National Iranian American Council, said. “Fortunately, this is still a nation of laws, and those who uphold America’s values have recourse to challenge and push back on such discriminatory, arbitrary policies.”

Shawn VanDiver, a Navy veteran who heads a coalition that supports Afghan resettlement efforts called #AfghanEvac, said the ruling was a “significant victory for the rule of law and for thousands of Afghan allies and other immigrants who followed every requirement asked of them.”

“Just this week in Dallas and Fort Worth, we met people who feared losing jobs because delayed work permit renewals threatened their livelihoods, families who postponed education, travel, and homeownership because they did not know when their cases would be resolved, and future Americans who had expected to become citizens only to see their applications stall without explanation,” VanDiver said.

Churches with women pastors debated

When Southern Baptists gather Tuesday in Florida for their annual meeting, they’ll debate for the fourth year in a row whether to formally ban churches with a woman serving in any role resembling that of pastor — not just the top job.

One thing they are unlikely to debate is the politics of many Southern Baptists, the vanguard of broader white conservative evangelical support for President Donald Trump.

Officials for the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, say more than 11,000 church representatives have preregistered for the two-day meeting in Orlando.

Revisiting a ban on churches with women pastors

In the previous three annual meetings, a majority of representatives voted to amend the SBC constitution to ban churches with women in any pastoral role. But the measures failed to get a two-thirds supermajority in two consecutive years that is required to pass an amendment.

The denomination’s statement of belief, the Baptist Faith and Message, declares that the office of pastor is limited to men. While nonbinding on churches, this has prompted the SBC to expel some churches with women in leading pastoral roles. Now the focus is those who preach or serve in subordinate pastoral roles.

This year, an amendment proposed by Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, would exclude any church that acts “to affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor/elder/overseer, specifically preaching to the assembled congregation.”

Mohler noted the debate has consumed too much time and attention. “Clarity in the constitution would settle that,” he said.

The outgoing SBC president, Clint Pressley, supports the amendment, as do both candidates running to succeed him.

Another nonbinding resolution with similar language will be considered. It requires only a simple majority to pass.

As an association of independent congregations, the SBC can’t tell them what to do. But it can expel any church deemed not to be in “friendly cooperation.” The convention has ousted churches in recent years that appointed women to top pastoral positions or asserted the right to do so. But the status of churches with female assistant pastors is still debated.

On his own podcast, Mohler recently said it would even be a “problem” for a church podcast to include a woman answering questions about that week’s sermon.

Array of issues queued up for debate

That view drew pushback online, including from prominent Bible teacher Beth Moore, who left the SBC after she faced criticism for advocating for victims of sexual abuse and criticizing evangelical support for Trump despite such things as his crude sexual boasts.

“How in heaven’s name a woman discussing a sermon on a podcast could be objectionable to some is beyond me and what I believe to be beyond scripture,” she posted on X.

She added later: “Which has been the greater problem: women trying to become your senior pastors or pastors misusing or abusing women?”

Amy Sims, associate pastor of preschool and children at Sugarland Baptist Church in Sugarland, Texas, described a now-yearly contrast of preparing for vacation Bible school just as Southern Baptists are debating women’s ministry.

“I preach. I teach. I disciple children and families,” she wrote on the independent site Baptist News Global. “I walk with parents through crises. I visit hospitals. I help lead people to faith in Christ. I perform baptisms. … I serve now at a church that is beautifully supportive of my work and calling as a woman and pastor.”

Every June, Sims added, “there are those who seem determined to remind me they do not believe God could have called me to do the very work I am doing.”

Even as the convention’s membership shrinks, the annual meeting serves as a bellwether for religious and political trends among evangelicals. And as is typical, the biggest attention will be on whether the already-conservative SBC decides to move further rightward.

The upcoming meeting follows the release of internal statistics showing a continuation of a nearly two-decade-long decline in membership. It’s down to 12.3 million, the lowest since 1973.

Southern Baptists have, however, seen a bump in baptisms. They consider this a key spiritual vital sign because it measures conversions, though the increase is not enough to stem the overall decline.

Southern Baptists will consider other policy statements. One proposed resolution calls for humane treatment of immigrants and rejecting nativistic and dehumanizing rhetoric while also affirming the government’s responsibility for immigration enforcement.

Another denounces antisemitic violence and conspiracy theories, notably those arising since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. At the same time, the resolution affirms Southern Baptists’ hope for Jews’ conversion to Christianity.

In 1996, an SBC resolution called for the evangelization of Jews, prompting major Jewish leaders to call it a setback for interfaith relations.

Baptists’ long ties to conservative politics

Beyond denominational politics, the majority-white SBC is a core part of the wider, predominately white evangelical constituency that has coalesced behind Trump. Prominent Southern Baptists say they see little change in that.

They like Trump’s official policy recognizing only two, biologically determined genders, though they worry about his administration’s moderation on abortion. Baptist leaders have largely supported his war against Iran, but were quick to move on from Trump’s posting in April of a social media meme they deemed to be blasphemous.

Trump won the support of about 8 in 10 white evangelical Christian voters in 2020 and 2024, according to AP VoteCast, a large voter survey.

About two-thirds of white born-again Protestants approved of Trump’s overall performance in April, compared to about one-third of U.S. adults overall. That’s according to survey findings from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Mohler said evangelicals were widely appalled at the Trump social-media meme depicting himself as a healing savior.

“You had the vast majority of evangelicals saying this is fundamentally wrong,” Mohler said. But that’s “within the context of the fact that overwhelmingly evangelicals supported President Trump as president.”

Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of the large First Baptist Church in Dallas and a longtime Trump supporter, said he appreciated that the president “had enough sensitivity to remove” the meme after the backlash.

Emphasizing that he was speaking for himself and not his church or the SBC, Jeffress added that he supported Trump’s creation of a Religious Liberty Commission, where Jeffress testified about what he contended was unfair scrutiny of his church by the IRS.

Jeffress also supported Trump’s decision to go to war against Iran, saying a president has “not only the right but the God-given duty to protect our nation.”

Mohler agreed, but sought to temper expectations. He said he supported past wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but now realizes that some of their objectives, such as nation-building, were not realistic. A just war needs “limited and honest aims,” he said.

Dwight McKissic, senior pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, has criticized fellow Southern Baptist leaders for both their political slant and their gender focus.

The Black pastor posted on X that the SBC and its theologians have been wrong about issues ranging from slavery and segregation to the mistreatment of sexual-abuse survivors.

“And now they expect us to just blindly trust them on gender theology and women in ministry issues?” McKissic wrote.