A former national security official is warning that one of President Donald Trump’s latest appointments could become a major flashpoint ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Speaking during an appearance on MS NOW, national security analyst Michael Feinberg argued that Trump’s decision to install Bill Pulte as Acting Director of National Intelligence presents what he described as a serious risk to public confidence in future elections.

His warning was dramatic.

According to Feinberg, the level of concern has gone far beyond ordinary political disagreement.

“The needle signifying danger went through the black into the red and off the dial,” he said.

The comments have fueled renewed debate over the role intelligence officials should play during election seasons and how classified information could affect public trust in democratic institutions.

During the interview, Feinberg focused on the unique authority held by the Director of National Intelligence.

That position oversees access to some of the federal government’s most sensitive intelligence assessments involving national security, foreign threats, cyber operations, and election-related information.

According to Feinberg, his concern is not simply who occupies the office—but how classified intelligence could potentially be handled.

He suggested that an intelligence report could theoretically be partially declassified in a way that raises public suspicion while leaving classified the information that provides broader context.

“Bill Pulte could very well take an actual bona fide intelligence report and declassify just enough of it to make it look like something suspicious has happened,” Feinberg said.

He argued that such a scenario could create significant confusion because officials who still have access to the full classified material might be legally prohibited from publicly correcting incomplete interpretations.

“If he does that,” Feinberg continued, “anyone who attempts to correct the record… is going to be violating laws against mishandling classified information.”

His concerns remain hypothetical, and Feinberg did not allege that such actions have occurred.

Instead, he described what he believes could become a potential vulnerability if safeguards fail.

Bill Pulte, who previously worked in private equity before joining the Trump administration, has become one of the president’s closest advisers.

Within Washington political circles, he has earned a reputation as a trusted confidant who maintains frequent communication with Trump.

Supporters argue that close relationships between presidents and senior intelligence officials are not unusual and help ensure effective national security coordination.

Critics, however, contend that intelligence agencies must maintain clear independence from partisan political interests.

Feinberg urged Congress to act before the midterm elections.

“Congress needs to get its act together,” he said, arguing lawmakers should ensure that election-related institutions remain insulated from political controversy.

His concerns extended beyond Pulte himself.

Feinberg also mentioned Jay Clayton, expressing reservations about remarks Clayton has previously made regarding California elections.

Those comments, Feinberg argued, did not increase his confidence that future election-related disputes would necessarily be handled in a politically neutral manner.

The interview arrives as election administration has once again become one of the central issues in American politics.

President Trump has repeatedly called for major changes to federal election procedures, including restrictions on mail voting and broader reforms that legal scholars say would require congressional action under the Constitution.

Supporters maintain those proposals are necessary to strengthen election integrity.

Opponents argue they risk undermining public confidence in elections without evidence of widespread fraud.

Feinberg’s latest warning adds another dimension to that broader debate—raising questions about how intelligence agencies, classified information, and national security assessments could intersect with future political disputes.

Whether those concerns ultimately materialize remains uncertain.

No evidence has been presented indicating classified intelligence has been improperly handled in the manner Feinberg described.

Nevertheless, his comments highlight the growing attention surrounding the institutions that oversee election security as the 2026 midterms draw closer.

With political tensions already high, even hypothetical scenarios involving classified intelligence are likely to receive close scrutiny from lawmakers, election officials, and the public alike.

And according to Feinberg, ensuring confidence in those institutions may become one of the defining challenges of the next election cycle.