Apparently that's a question that soon-to-be-former Acting DNI Ric Grenell asked himself. That's just one more reason why a clearly panicked Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) is rushing the nomination of previous outcast John Ratcliffe for the DNI post with almost unseemly haste.
Not only did Grenell come up with that question, but he found an answer: there is NO reason for that practice. In fact, it's an elementary violation of sound Intel practice. So, having found an answer to his question, Grenell acted--per Jack Posobiec:
BREAKING: New DNI instruction removes FBI from codeword SIGINT briefings and products that contain sources/methods. They have been ordered to return to core LE/CT work.
More: The FBI will no longer receive raw or refined sources and methods COMINT/SIGINT product, only sanitized analyst product.
The orders have already gone out to the relevant IC commands, including INSCOM. Now FBI's access will only be granted on a per-incident basis if matter is not directly related to terrorism or a criminal activity under active investigation.
With the exception of terrorism and criminal matters the FBI is out of the raw intelligence business.
One reason to enforce need to know rules is to diminish the number of possible leakers. And now we know that the SSCI can act expeditiously when faced with an emergency. Who knows what other questions Grenell has been asking himself?