Explosive Showdown: Gabbard’s Disclosure of CIA Officer’s Identity Sparks Tensions with Agency Chief, Insiders Reveal

Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, recently stirred controversy by naming an undercover CIA officer who had her security clearance revoked. This move shocked many within the CIA and highlighted rising tensions between Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

Gabbard’s decision aligns with her attempt to regain favor with President Trump, particularly after a previous fallout over her comments on Iran. Last week, she revealed that some officials had been stripped of their security clearances due to “politicization or weaponization of intelligence.” Significant was Trump’s recent praise for her, signaling a shift back to their collaborative efforts.

This incident isn’t isolated; it echoes past conflicts in intelligence history. The role of Director of National Intelligence was established post-9/11 to improve cooperation among agencies. However, clashes have historically arisen. For example, during Obama’s administration, DNI Dennis Blair faced tensions with CIA head Leon Panetta, leading to his resignation within a year and a half.

The recent security clearance revocations signal a broader purge of civil servants deemed insufficiently loyal. Over the past few months, dozens of intelligence officials have left their posts under similar circumstances, often without clear justification or the chance to defend themselves. This approach contrasts sharply with past administrations, which maintained a degree of separation between politics and intelligence.

The CIA analyst involved had recently dedicated efforts to prepare for a significant summit between Trump and Russian President Putin. According to former colleagues, her abrupt dismissal puzzled many, raising concerns about operational security in revealing her identity. Intelligence veterans argue that failing to coordinate such actions with the CIA compromises not only individual safety but also U.S. relations with foreign partners.

Legal experts, like former intelligence official Larry Pfeiffer, emphasize the danger of undermining established protocols. “It’s just common sense to consult with the agency most affected by such a decision,” he stated.

This current political environment has drawn comparisons to the McCarthy era, when accusations of disloyalty were rampant. Many former officials see Gabbard’s actions as a direct threat to democratic norms and due process. Attorney Mark Zaid pointed out that the lack of justification behind these clearance revocations reflects troubling trends in governmental practices.

In summary, the friction between Gabbard and Ratcliffe not only sheds light on the challenges within U.S. intelligence but also signals a shift toward a more politically charged landscape. As the administration navigates these waters, the implications for intelligence and national security remain significant and worthy of observation. For more on this topic, consider visiting NBC News.

Source link