WASHINGTON — Republicans hesitated on Monday to embrace President Trump’s choice for the director of national intelligence, and some privately expressed doubts about his potential confirmation, echoing concerns of experts and Democrats that he was too inexperienced and too partisan.
Mr. Trump’s pick, Representative John Ratcliffe of Texas, could face an uphill battle, Senate Republicans said in private conversations. Several said they wanted to keep the intelligence post apolitical, and Mr. Ratcliffe will need to show he can move beyond the die-hard conservative persona that has made him a star in the House and on Fox News but less well known among senators who will decide whether to confirm him.
Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee, including its chairman, Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, said they were unfamiliar with the congressman. “I don’t know John Ratcliffe,” Mr. Burr said. “I talked to him on the phone last night — it’s the first contact I’ve ever had with him. I look forward to getting to know him, and if I get an official nomination, I’ll process it through the committee.”
Another Republican committee member, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who helped craft the 2004 law that created the position of director of national intelligence, said the job should be filled by someone “with the integrity and skill and ability to bring all the members of the intelligence community together.”
The cool reception from members of the president’s own party reflected the split at hand: For what is supposed to be perhaps the most nonpartisan job in Washington, Mr. Trump selected one of the capital’s fiercest political warriors.
One of Mr. Trump’s most ardent defenders, Mr. Ratcliffe was elected to Congress in 2014 after mounting a conservative primary challenge to a 17-term Republican incumbent, Ralph Hall. Mr. Ratcliffe had served as a United States attorney in Texas and as the mayor of Heath, Tex., a town of about 9,000 people outside Dallas.
Mr. Ratcliffe’s main intelligence experience has come as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, which he joined this year. But his record is one of fierce combat in the most partisan intelligence and judicial fights. A relentless critic of the Russia investigation, he ably challenged Robert S. Mueller III during his House testimony last week and has cast doubt on the C.I.A.’s finding that Moscow favored Mr. Trump the 2016 election.
With Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, almost certain to oppose any nominee to the position, Republicans can only afford to lose two more yes votes if Democrats line up against the nomination.
Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida and a member of the intelligence panel, said he knew and liked Mr. Ratcliffe but acknowledged that he could have difficulty attracting broad Senate backing because of his reputation as a partisan. A critical function of the director, Mr. Rubio noted, is “to make sure that the entire intelligence community is working in an apolitical way to arrive at a set of facts that policymakers can make decisions on.”
Mr. Rubio added: “I wouldn’t say that I’m concerned that he’s incapable of doing that job. I certainly think that’s going to be an issue among Democrats and others that we’re going to have to confront, because I do think the D.N.I. needs to be someone that goes in with a strong vote of support.”
Republican Senate leaders showed subtle signs of discontent about the nomination. Mr. Burr waited nearly a day to publicly congratulate Mr. Ratcliffe. By contrast, Mr. Burr issued an effusive endorsement when the president nominated Dan Coats to the post in 2017.
The Trump administration has done little to vet cabinet nominees, to the frustration of many Republicans. While they have been loath to block many of Mr. Trump’s appointments, they have slow-rolled some nominations, like that of former Acting Defense Secretary Patrick M. Shanahan, who withdrew from consideration after a drawn-out review of his background and qualifications. And questions on Capitol Hill about the qualifications of two picks for the Federal Reserve effectively torpedoed them.
The political winds from the Trump White House have buffeted the intelligence agencies, and Mr. Coats worked to insulate them. If Mr. Ratcliffe is confirmed, some current and former American officials believe that other top intelligence officials like the C.I.A. director, Gina Haspel, and the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, could lose their shield against White House interference and partisan criticism.
Democrats said on Monday that they were worried that Mr. Ratcliffe would do little to push back against the Justice Department’s review of the origins of the Russia inquiry, for which Mr. Trump gave Attorney General William P. Barr broad power to declassify intelligence. Democrats also said they had concerns that Mr. Ratcliffe would not stand up to Mr. Trump when his views on Iran or North Korea were at odds with the assessment of intelligence analysts.
Mr. Ratcliffe’s chief qualification is “his record of promoting Donald Trump’s conspiracy theories,” said Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who is on the Intelligence Committee.
“Congressman Ratcliffe is the most partisan and least qualified individual ever nominated to serve as director of national intelligence,” Mr. Wyden said.
Mr. Ratcliffe has relentlessly criticized the F.B.I. for using uncorroborated information provided by a former British spy to obtain a surveillance warrant on a former Trump campaign adviser. He has also repeatedly raised the issue of anti-Trump bias among key investigators. While he acknowledges Moscow interfered in the election, Mr. Ratcliffe has also questioned whether the Russians were really trying to aid Mr. Trump, as the formal intelligence committee assessment and Mr. Mueller’s report concluded, or were merely trying to sow chaos in the American political system.
His record of criticism of the F.B.I. has provoked fears among former law enforcement officials that Mr. Ratcliffe would continue his assault on the bureau.
“Mr. Ratcliffe’s partisan political behavior on behalf of the president, including attacks on the special counsel’s investigation, raises serious questions about whether he possesses the requisite qualities to fulfill that responsibility,” said David Laufman, a former top Justice Department official.
While the response to Mr. Ratcliffe on Capitol Hill was more tepid than the White House hoped for, the nomination is still in its very early stages, and the congressman could build support as he begins to meet with senators.
Mr. Ratcliffe’s Republican defenders insisted he is fair. His political bite is largely virtue of circumstance, they said, adding that he harbors greater respect for the law enforcement and intelligence communities than many House Republicans in his circle.
In private, his allies said, he is inclined to give national security officials the benefit of the doubt and has defended — sometimes against his political allies — the need for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to have access to tools like domestic surveillance. And despite his criticisms of the Russia investigation, they pointed out, he did not join calls for Mr. Mueller’s removal as special counsel or question the evidence of Russian election interference.
Democrats’ criticism of Mr. Ratcliffe is “more reflective of the political environment we are in than John Ratcliffe,” said Trey Gowdy, the former congressman from South Carolina who like Mr. Ratcliffe is a former federal prosecutor.
Mr. Ratcliffe has not always toed the Trump administration’s rhetorical line: He said Americans were more at risk from a digital attack than from someone crossing the southern border and has told associates that his focus as director of national intelligence would be on cyberthreats and counterterrorism.
Mr. Ratcliffe pledged in a statement on Sunday to “work on behalf of all the public servants who are tirelessly devoted to defending the security and safety of the United States.”
Mr. Trump, of course, has named other partisans to top intelligence jobs. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, his first C.I.A. director, had a reputation as a strong skeptic of the Iran nuclear deal and a critic of the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi attacks.
But Mr. Pompeo appointed Ms. Haspel, an agency veteran, as his deputy and quickly came to rely on her expertise, signaling to the C.I.A. rank and file that he valued intelligence professionals.
Mr. Ratcliffe, however, has indicated that he intends to clean house, according to people familiar with his plans. The fate of Mr. Coats’s deputy, Sue Gordon, who runs the office’s day-to-day operations, is unclear. The White House did not immediately announce that she would serve as the acting director when Mr. Coats departs on Aug. 15, as is typical.
Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee have long been pushing for an overhaul of the office, eliminating jobs, slimming the agency and changing how it operates. Mr. Ratcliffe, according to American officials, is likely to try to push through some of those changes if confirmed.
But Mr. Gowdy expressed skepticism that Mr. Ratcliffe would focus on shaking up the office. “People are most upset with John because he is good at what he does,” Mr. Gowdy said. “He is also going to be good at what he is fixing to do, and that is intelligence, not politics.”
The White House has considered Mr. Ratcliffe for at least one law enforcement position in recent months, and he won over Mr. Trump in a meeting in recent weeks. He appeared to have sealed the intelligence nomination by executing one of the most effective Republican attacks on Mr. Mueller during his closely watched House testimony last week.
Indeed, if Mr. Ratcliffe is confirmed, the appointment would deprive the president of one of his ablest allies in the House. Republicans consider Mr. Ratcliffe so important to Mr. Trump’s defense on Capitol Hill that his appointment would have been less likely if they still feared that Democrats would advance an impeachment case against Mr. Trump, said one lawmaker familiar with the president’s thinking.
In addition to the reservations over Mr. Ratcliffe’s partisanship, some former intelligence officials have said they do not think he has the necessary background. The law establishing the intelligence post required that the director have “extensive national security expertise.”
Though directors of national intelligence do not have to have experience as intelligence officers — Mr. Coats did not — they should be deeply immersed in national security and the uses of intelligence, said Mark M. Lowenthal, a former senior C.I.A. official.
“This is not a great position for on-the-job training,” Mr. Lowenthal said. “There is a very steep learning curve.”
Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Emily Cochrane contributed reporting.