Tulsi Gabbard targets Obama-era officials in security clearance purge

In a bold move that has Washington buzzing, Tulsi Gabbard, serving as Director of National Intelligence under President Donald Trump, has stripped security clearances from 37 officials tied to the Obama administration and the controversial Russiagate probe, as the Daily Mail reports. This isn’t just a paperwork shuffle — it’s a signal of a no-nonsense approach to those accused of politicizing intelligence. And let’s be honest, it has the Beltway crowd clutching their pearls.

This action, part of a broader Trump administration push to root out perceived adversaries, saw Gabbard revoke clearances of former officials linked to the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Many of these folks, some long out of government and ranging from top brass to lesser-known roles, got the news not from a formal letter, but from Tuesday’s headlines. Talk about a cold way to find out you’ve been sidelined. A few had even signed onto assessments claiming Russia meddled in 2016 to boost Trump, making this feel like a targeted jab.

Gabbard takes aim

This isn’t the first time Trump’s team has wielded clearance revocations as a weapon — law firms and officials tied to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy faced similar treatment over claims of Russian disinformation. It’s a familiar playbook: question loyalty, pull the plug, and let the chips fall. Turns out, actions do have consequences.

Just last month, Gabbard declassified old documents meant to undermine the legitimacy of the Russian interference narrative. It’s a clear message — don’t expect dusty files to stay buried when they might serve a purpose. Some might call it transparency; others, a calculated counterpunch.

Meanwhile, two former officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, hinted at potential legal challenges to the revocations. They’ve got a point—being publicly stripped of clearance without a direct heads-up feels like a punch below the belt. But in this administration’s view, trust is a privilege, not a guarantee.

Accusations fly, including against Obama

Gabbard didn’t stop at clearances; she turned up the heat on former President Barack Obama, accusing him on Fox & Friends last Saturday of leading a “treasonous conspiracy.” She doubled down, alleging Obama’s White House peddled a “hoax” tying Trump’s 2016 campaign to the Kremlin. That’s not just criticism — it’s a grenade lobbed at a former commander-in-chief.

“President Obama’s very carefully worded response… deflects away from addressing any of the truth,” Gabbard said. Nice try, she seems to imply, but dodging the specifics won’t cut it when the stakes are this high. If you’re going to play the deflection game, at least bring a better defense.

A day before her TV appearance, Gabbard sent a criminal referral against Obama to Attorney General Pam Bondi, claiming he “manufactured and politicized intelligence” to smear Trump. That’s a serious charge, not just a political talking point. It’s the kind of accusation that demands evidence — and scrutiny.

Trump joins the fray

Trump himself echoed the treason claims, calling out Obama on Tuesday and insisting he’d been caught “cold.” He even pressed Bondi to “act” on the matter, though he left the final call to her discretion. It’s vintage Trump—throw down the gauntlet, then step back just enough to avoid overreach.

Obama’s team fired back, with a spokesperson dismissing the allegations as “ridiculous” and a “weak attempt at distraction.” They pointed to bipartisan findings, including a 2020 Senate report affirming Russia’s 2016 interference without vote manipulation. Sounds reasonable, but in this climate, even bipartisan reports get painted as suspect by skeptics.

Interestingly, despite the venom, Trump and Obama were spotted chatting cordially at Jimmy Carter’s funeral in January, a stark contrast to their history of tension over birther conspiracies. Politics may be a blood sport, but apparently, funerals call for a temporary truce. Still, don’t expect handshakes to erase years of bad blood.

Broader national security implications emerge

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle defended the revocations, stating, “Director Gabbard rightfully directed the revocation” to end government weaponization against citizens. It’s a rallying cry for those who see intelligence agencies as overreaching. But does stripping clearances really restore trust, or just silence dissent?

National security lawyer Mark Zaid called the moves “unlawful and unconstitutional,” arguing they violate long-standing policies. That’s a fair critique—decades of precedent don’t bend easily, even for a cause. Yet, in a polarized era, legal norms often take a backseat to political expediency.

This broader campaign to target adversaries risks chilling honest debate within the national security community, where dissenting voices are already scarce. Gabbard’s own words on X, “every person involved… must be investigated,” suggest no one’s off-limits. It’s a tough stance, but at what cost to open dialogue in a field that thrives on it?