1k
499
0
199
388
3471Just a month ago, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard made headlines after firing more than 100 intelligence officers across 15 agencies. Their offense? Using a government-run chat platform for off-topic discussions ranging from politics to polyamory.
“I put out a directive today that they all will be terminated and their security clearances will be revoked,” Gabbard told Fox News at the time. She said the messages, which were shared on a collaboration tool managed by the National Security Agency, crossed professional boundaries and damaged public trust in the intelligence community.
The chats were first exposed by conservative writer Christopher Rufo, who published transcripts reportedly leaked by NSA personnel. These included political opinions, personal views on gender identity, and even criticism of Gabbard herself. Gabbard called the conduct “an egregious violation of trust.”
She also said the firings were part of a broader effort to “clean house” across the intelligence community, in line with President Donald Trump’s goals. “Holding these individuals accountable is just the beginning,” she said.
But now, the situation around government messaging apps is under even more scrutiny—and Gabbard is right in the middle of it again.
Signal App Sparks Fresh Controversy
During a House Intelligence Committee hearing this week, Gabbard revealed that the encrypted messaging app Signal now comes “pre-installed” on government-issued devices. That’s a significant shift from past policy. Signal had largely been banned across federal agencies due to concerns about data security.
She pointed to guidance from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which encouraged “highly targeted individuals” to use end-to-end encrypted apps like Signal, especially after last year’s massive Chinese hack of U.S. telecom networks.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe backed up her statement, saying Signal was installed on his CIA devices shortly after his confirmation.
But critics are raising red flags, especially in light of a recent scandal. According to The Atlantic, a Signal group chat that included Gabbard, Ratcliffe, Vice President JD Vance, and other top Trump officials featured detailed discussions about military operations—specifically, a strike on Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen.
Democrats Slam Gabbard and Ratcliffe
At a Senate hearing, Democratic senators accused Gabbard and Ratcliffe of dodging accountability. Both denied that any classified material was shared.
“There was no classified material that was shared,” Gabbard insisted, though she declined to say whether she was using a personal or government phone at the time.
Ratcliffe echoed the sentiment: “I haven’t participated in any Signal group messaging that relates to any classified information at all.”
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) countered that even if the material wasn’t technically classified, it might still qualify as “controlled unclassified information,” which isn’t supposed to be shared on unsecured platforms.
Even more troubling to lawmakers, Gabbard admitted she hadn’t read the relevant policies. “Because of the nature of a private discussion that took place between individual leaders in our government,” she said, she couldn’t say whether the shared information would’ve been allowed under intelligence community rules.
Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) called it an embarrassment. “There’s been no apology, there has been no recognition of the gravity of this error.”
Will the Firings Backfire?
Gabbard’s earlier move to fire over 100 officers for inappropriate chatroom behavior was pitched as a strict stand for professional conduct. But now, her own use of a controversial messaging app is raising questions about double standards.
The firings could come back into focus if further investigations reveal that senior officials were also pushing the limits of secure communication. Gabbard framed the purge as part of a Trump-era effort to “root out…corruption and politicization,” but critics argue that the same logic might apply to the Signal chat.
As Sen. Ossoff put it: “We will get the full transcript of this chain and your testimony will be measured carefully against its content.”
Whether Gabbard’s hardline decision will age well or not is still up in the air—but one thing’s clear: this story isn’t going away anytime soon.
1k4990199
3883471
