Guardian: Tulsi Gabbard did not alert White House before revoking 37 security clearances

Exclusive: White House only realized afterwards that clearances at the CIA and in Congress had been rescinded

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, did not inform the White House that her office was revoking the security clearances of 37 people – including top deputies to the CIA director, John Ratcliffe – before it happened last month, according to three people familiar with matter.

The move caused consternation because it resulted in the White House not having an opportunity to closely vet the list before it became public and there appeared to be no paper trail from the president directing the effort, the people said.

As a result, officials only realized after the fact that Gabbard had managed to pull the security clearances of career CIA officials, at least one of whom was a top adviser to Ratcliffe and had worked on some of the US’s most sensitive military operations, the people said.

The list also included two Democratic congressional staffers – Maher Bitar, the national security adviser to senator Adam Schiff, and Thomas West, an aide on the Senate foreign relations committee – prompting fears the administration would be thrust into a messy separation-of-powers issue.

Weeks later, several of Trump’s top advisers remain deeply frustrated with Gabbard and view the episode as a blunder that comes as Trump is skeptical of the intelligence community and has suggested dismantling the office of the director of national intelligence (ODNI).

It also appears to have deepened existing animosity between Gabbard, whose most important job as the director of national intelligence is delivering the president’s daily briefing and overseeing the intelligence agencies, and the CIA, whose officers actually produce the brief.

Trump advisers inside and outside of the administration have complained that Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff, Alexa Henning, did not explain to them how the list was compiled and the underlying evidence to warrant pulling the security clearances, the people said.

A senior intelligence official disputed this account and said Gabbard told Trump in the Oval Office that she had compiled names of officers who had worked on the intelligence assessments on Russia’s malign influence operations during the 2016 election who should be fired.

Trump replied to Gabbard that if those people had worked on the Russia intelligence assessments and they were still employed in the federal government, they should be removed, and Gabbard was merely executing the president’s agenda, the intelligence official said.

The intelligence official also claimed the list was emailed to the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles; the White House counsel, David Warrington; communications chiefs Steven Cheung and Taylor Budowich; the national security council; and the chiefs of staff at every major intelligence agency.

“The CIA just wants to blame ODNI all the time,” the official said.

A White House spokesperson did not address whether there had been advance notice or when the emails were sent but said in a statement: “Director Gabbard is doing a phenomenal job and the White House has worked closely with her on implementing the President’s objectives.

“The entire administration is aligned on ensuring those who have weaponized their clearances to manipulate intelligence, leak classified intelligence without authorization, and many other egregious acts are held to account,” the spokesperson said.

Rescinding security clearances was supposed to be part of an effort to correct what Trump’s advisers view as flaws in intelligence assessments and to punish Trump’s political enemies for allegedly mischaracterizing intelligence about Russian malign influence operations during the 2016 election.

Gabbard said in the memo announcing the revocations last month that her actions were at Trump’s direction and claimed that the people targeted were involved in the “politicization or weaponization of intelligence” to advance partisan agendas, or had leaked classified information.

“Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right,” Gabbard wrote. “Those in the Intelligence Community who betray their oath to the Constitution and put their own interests ahead of the interests of the American people have broken the sacred trust they promised to uphold.”

It was also in keeping with an executive order and followed the administration pulling security clearances for dozens of Trump’s political adversaries including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, as well as other figures from Trump’s first impeachment.

Gabbard is not expected to face significant ramifications over the episode, in large part because she has emerged relatively unscathed from other fraught moments, including when Trump in June publicly contradicted her assessment that Iran was far from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“I don’t care what she said,” Trump said in response to a question about Gabbard’s testimony that Iran had decided not to make a nuclear bomb, shortly after she was notably absent from a key meeting at Camp David on the matter. “I think they were very close to having it.”

Gabbard also drew Trump’s ire when she posted a video in June warning of nuclear annihilation. Trump harangued Gabbard, saying it would scare people and that she appeared more engaged in self-promotion in order to set herself up for higher office, a person familiar with the matter said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/20/tulsi-gabbard-white-house-security-clearances

MSNBC: ‘Embarrassing the FBI’: Schiff predicts Kash Patel won’t last long as director

“If he continues to embarrass the FBI and the president, he’s not going to last long in that job no matter how long he attacks me or anyone else,” says Sen. Adam Schiff on FBI director Kash Patel.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/embarrassing-the-fbi-schiff-predicts-kash-patel-won-t-last-long-as-director/vi-AA1MH7Wn

Slingshot News: ‘Clearly, I Struck A Nerve’: Adam Schiff Ridicules Kash Patel For His Immature Outbursts During Senate Hearing [Video]

In his appearance on MSNBC with Chris Hayes yesterday, Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) remarked on FBI Director Kash Patel’s testimony during an oversight hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clearly-i-struck-a-nerve-adam-schiff-ridicules-kash-patel-for-his-immature-outbursts-during-senate-hearing/vi-AA1MK1il

Washington Post: Senators ramp up pressure on Trump to abandon threats to send troops into U.S. cities

A group of Democratic senators is filing a friend of the court brief Tuesday in California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s lawsuit against President Donald Trump, stepping up pressure to keep Trump from overriding Democratic leaders and sending National Guard troops into Democrat-led cities like Chicago.

The 19 senators are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to overturn a temporary order issued by a three-judge panel in June that found that Trump had the authority to send National Guard troops into Los Angeles this summer over Newsom’s objections. The Democratic senators argue that the issue has gained greater salience since then, as Trump began threatening to go into other states and cities against the wishes of their governors and mayors.

The senators are amplifying Newsom’s argument that the president’s use of the federal troops — at a moment when local law enforcement officials said they did not need federal support — violated the separation of powers doctrine by usurping Congress.

A federal district court judge initially sided with Newsom on June 12. Then, on June 19, the three-judge panel issued their temporary ruling siding with Trump. California is waiting on a final ruling from the appeals court.

Led by California Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, the group includes senators who represent BaltimoreBostonChicago, and Portland — all cities that Trump has threatened to send in National Guard troops to “straighten it out” as he ramps up enforcement on crime and immigration. Schiff said in a statement that he hoped the Newsom case would become “the line drawn in the sand to prevent further misuse of our service members on the streets of American cities.”

The senators argue in their brief that by federalizing 4,000 California National Guard troops for domestic law enforcement over Newsom’s objections “without showing a genuine inability to enforce federal laws with the regular forces,” Trump violated the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering mandate and contravened the provisions of the Constitution assigning power over militias to Congress.

“Our concern that President Trump will continue to act in bad faith and abuse his power is borne out by his recent deployment of state militias to Washington, D.C. and his stated intent to deploy state militias elsewhere (like Chicago and Baltimore),” the senators wrote in the brief obtained by The Washington Post that will be filed in court Tuesday. They warned that courts are the last resort to “prevent the President from exceeding his constitutional powers” and that failing to do so could “usher in an era of unprecedented, dangerous executive power.”

In court filings this summer, the administration argued that Trump was compelled to send the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property because numerous “incidents of violence and disorder” posed unacceptable safety risks to personnel who were “supporting the faithful execution of federal immigration laws.” Department of Justice lawyers argued that Trump was within his rights to mobilize the National Guard and Marines “to protect federal agents and property from violent mobs that state and local authorities cannot or choose not to control.”

Before Trump sent National Guard troops into Los Angeles this summer in the midst of protests against his administration’s immigration raids, prior presidents had deployed Guard troops on American soil primarily to assist after natural disasters or to quell unrest.

The senators write that the last instance in which a president federalized the National Guard without consent from the state’s governor is when Alabama Gov. George Wallace (D) ordered the Alabama Highway Patrol to prevent the Rev. Martin Luther King, Rep. John Lewis and others from marching from Selma to Montgomery. President Lyndon B. Johnson intervened to protect the marchers.

Our arguments to the court make clear that Trump’s unprecedented militarization of Los Angeles should not be used as a playbook for terrorizing other cities across America,” Padilla said in a statement.

Last month, the president deployed National Guard troops and federal agents to D.C., arguing that they needed to tackle a “crime emergency” that local officials say does not exist. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, a Democrat, last week sued the Trump administration, seeking to force it to withdraw troops from the city.

In recent days, Trump has escalated his warnings to intervene in Chicago, posting on his social media site that the city is “about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR,” a reference to the Defense Department.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) said on social media Monday that Trump’s threats were not “about fighting crime,” which would require “support and coordination” from the administration that he had not yet seen.

The Department of Homeland Security announced Monday that it had launched an operation to target immigrants in Chicago as the president vowed a broader crackdown on violent crime. A spokesperson for Pritzker said Monday that the governor’s office has not received any formal communication from the Trump administration or information about its plans.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/senators-ramp-up-pressure-on-trump-to-abandon-threats-to-send-troops-into-u-s-cities/ar-AA1Mb9dp

Reuters: US Marshals were mobilized to warn fired DOJ lawyer over congressional testimony, attorney says

Sending out armed thugs to intimidate a former employee at his home to remain mum! 🙁

The U.S. Justice Department sent armed U.S. Marshals to deliver a letter warning a fired career pardon attorney about testifying to congressional Democrats, her lawyer said in a letter seen by Reuters on Monday.

“This highly unusual step of directing armed law enforcement officers to the home of a former Department of Justice employee who has engaged in no misconduct, let alone criminal conduct, simply to deliver a letter, is both unprecedented and completely inappropriate,” Michael Bromwich, a lawyer representing fired pardon attorney Liz Oyer, wrote to the Justice Department.’

Oyer has since told various media outlets that her firing came shortly after she declined to recommend restoring gun rights to actor Mel Gibson, a supporter of President Donald Trump.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ar-AA1Ctrlb