Tulsi Gabbard in HOT WATER over Classified Whistleblower Complaint
WASHINGTON — A highly classified whistleblower complaint alleging wrongdoing by Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard has been mired in bureaucratic delays and accusations of stonewalling for nearly eight months, raising questions about transparency, national security protocols, and potential political motivations within the U.S. intelligence community. The complaint, filed in May 2025 with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), has only recently been shared with congressional oversight committees after prolonged wrangling over its sensitive contents. This development comes amid Gabbard’s tenure as DNI, a position she assumed following her controversial nomination by President Donald Trump in late 2024 and confirmation in early 2025.
The saga began when an unidentified U.S. intelligence official submitted the complaint to the ICIG, the watchdog office responsible for handling such allegations within the 18 agencies under the DNI’s umbrella. According to sources familiar with the matter, the document accuses Gabbard of unspecified misconduct and also implicates another unnamed federal agency. Its classification level is extraordinarily high, with officials warning that improper disclosure could cause “grave damage to national security.” Reports indicate the complaint has been physically secured in a safe, underscoring the cloak-and-dagger nature of the case, which some have likened to a spy novel. Additionally, it raises potential issues of executive privilege that may involve the White House, complicating the process further.
The Delay and Accusations of Obstruction
Under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, credible complaints deemed “urgent concerns” are typically assessed and transmitted to congressional intelligence committees within weeks. However, this case has dragged on without precedent, with Congress not receiving the full details until early February 2026—more than eight months after the initial filing. The whistleblower’s attorney, Andrew Bakaj, a prominent figure in whistleblower advocacy who previously represented the Ukraine whistleblower during Trump’s first impeachment, has been vocal in his criticism.
In a November 2025 letter to Gabbard’s office, Bakaj accused the DNI of deliberately obstructing the complaint’s transmission to lawmakers, claiming she was taking “illegal actions to protect herself.” “After nearly eight months of taking illegal actions to protect herself, the time has come for Tulsi Gabbard to comply with the law and fully release the disclosure to Congress,” Bakaj stated through Whistleblower Aid, his nonprofit organization. Bakaj himself has not been granted access to the complaint due to its classification, highlighting the extraordinary secrecy surrounding it.
Bakaj’s allegations have fueled speculation among Democrats and critics of the Trump administration, who point to Gabbard’s history of controversial statements on foreign policy, including her past criticisms of U.S. interventions in Syria and her endorsement of Trump after leaving the Democratic Party in 2022. Some, like Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA), have publicly demanded the complaint’s release, tying it to longstanding concerns about Gabbard’s alleged ties to Russia—claims she has repeatedly denied as smears. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, noted that Gabbard had pledged during her confirmation hearings to protect whistleblowers and ensure congressional oversight.
Gabbard’s Defense and the ICIG’s Findings
Gabbard’s office has vehemently rejected the accusations, describing the complaint as “baseless and politically motivated.” DNI spokesperson Olivia Coleman stated that the office has provided the necessary security guidance to facilitate the complaint’s secure sharing with Congress, but the process was complicated by the document’s extreme sensitivity. “Director Gabbard has always and will continue to support whistleblowers and their right, under the law, to submit complaints to Congress, even if they are completely baseless like this one,” Coleman posted on X.
Crucially, the ICIG’s acting inspector general, Tamara Johnson, reviewed the allegations and determined that those specifically targeting Gabbard “did not appear credible.” However, the office could not reach a conclusion on claims involving the other agency. Gabbard’s aides have criticized media coverage, particularly The Wall Street Journal’s initial report, as “utter trash” and suggested it amplifies unfounded attacks. Conservative outlets and supporters, including Just the News, have echoed this, framing the story as another attempt to undermine Trump appointees through anonymous leaks.
The delay has been attributed to multiple factors, including a government shutdown in late 2025, leadership changes within the ICIG, and the need for interagency coordination on declassification protocols. Recent X posts indicate that the complaint was finally transmitted to key lawmakers in early February 2026, with the IG’s non-credible finding reiterated.
Broader Context and Implications
This incident unfolds against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny over whistleblower protections in the Trump administration. Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has removed several inspectors general, and Gabbard has faced criticism for replacing key oversight officials in the intelligence community. Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman and 2020 presidential candidate who switched to independent before endorsing Trump, has been a polarizing figure. Her role as DNI has involved high-profile actions, such as investigating alleged leaks within her own agency and pursuing inquiries into past intelligence matters like the Russia hoax.
Experts in government oversight, such as those cited in The Wall Street Journal, note that the prolonged delay is unusual and could erode trust in the whistleblower process. “The Inspector General’s independence and neutrality is non-existent when the Director of National Intelligence illegally inserts herself into the process,” Bakaj argued. On the other hand, Gabbard’s defenders point to her track record of supporting whistleblowers in other contexts, including criminal referrals against leakers in her agency.
As Congress reviews the complaint, calls for an independent investigation have grown from both sides of the aisle. Whistleblower Aid has urged lawmakers to probe Gabbard’s handling of the matter, while Republican supporters dismiss it as partisan harassment. The full contents remain classified, leaving much of the public in the dark about the specifics. What is clear, however, is that this episode highlights ongoing tensions between executive authority, congressional oversight, and the safeguards meant to protect those who expose potential wrongdoing in the shadows of national security.
