Gabbard’s dispute over a classified complaint escalated Monday when the director’s general counsel warned an attorney representing an anonymous government employee not to directly share the top-secret allegations with members of Congress, warning that doing so could expose the attorney or the complainant to criminal liability.
The warning came in a letter to attorney Andrew Bakaj, a former CIA officer, from Gabbard’s general counsel for Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. The letter targeted Bakaj’s offer to meet with lawmakers or their staff, an option the complaint’s representative had discussed in order to bring the allegations and the general counsel’s review to congressional attention.
According to the complaint’s contents as described in a memo sent to lawmakers by inspector general Christopher Fox, the anonymous author filed a top-secret report in May alleging that Gabbard withheld classified information for political reasons. The complaint also accused Gabbard’s general counsel of failing to report a potential crime to the Justice Department, Fox wrote in describing the review for members of Congress.
Fox’s memo said that two inspectors general reviewed the allegations. Fox said that the earlier inspector general, Tamara Johnson, found the allegation that Gabbard restricted distribution of a highly classified intelligence report for political purposes did not appear to be credible. Fox also wrote that Johnson said she was “unable to assess the apparent credibility” of the separate accusation about the general counsel’s office, and he described Johnson’s approach to determining whether the matter met the statutory definition of “urgent concern.”
Gabbard’s office framed its Monday letter as a risk-management move tied to the complaint’s “highly classified nature.” In the general counsel’s letter, the office warned that Bakaj or his client could face criminal charges if they “inadvertently or otherwise breaks the law by divulging or mishandling classified information.” The letter added that “You may have other means of appearing in front of Congress, but this is not it,” according to the account in the AP report.
In response, Bakaj sent a letter to the heads of the House and Senate intelligence committees, stating that he was seeking guidance from Gabbard’s office on how his client could contact lawmakers to share concerns. Bakaj wrote that he had asked the DNI office for direction and was “in the process of further engaging with the DNI to continue to seek guidance,” adding that he would welcome the committees’ cooperation in asking the DNI to substantively respond.
The controversy also renewed scrutiny of the time it took for the complaint to reach Congress. Federal law allows intelligence whistleblowers to ask to refer complaints directly to key lawmakers, even if an inspector general finds them non-credible, so long as the whistleblower deems the allegations urgent; AP reported that this determination was made by the original watchdog. Democrats said the complaint nevertheless did not reach select members until last week, after months of review and redactions.
Democratic lawmakers and their allies on the intelligence committees argued that the delay raised questions about process and transparency. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he would push Gabbard for answers about the underlying complaint and why it took so long to reach lawmakers, citing the number of redactions as making the allegations hard to evaluate. Warner said the fact that the complaint had “sat out there for six, seven, eight months now and we are only seeing it now, raises huge concerns in and of itself,” according to AP’s report.
The Republicans who lead the intelligence committees were backing Gabbard, according to the AP account. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, wrote on X that it seemed “like an effort by the president’s critics to undermine him,” signaling skepticism about the allegations and about the political motives attributed to the whistleblower dispute.
Gabbard responded to criticism in a social media post Saturday, according to AP, and provided a timeline explaining why she said the complaint reached Congress only last week. She said Tamara Johnson was appointed interim inspector general during President Joe Biden’s administration, and she argued that she acted quickly after learning of the complaint. AP reported that Gabbard said she believed the investigation had ended after it was found non-credible, but that the inspector general’s office later told her the complaint still had to be reviewed, redacted and sent to members of Congress.
Under the process described in the AP report, the delivery of the top-secret complaint began last week when it was hand-delivered to the “Gang of Eight,” a group made up of House and Senate leadership from both parties and the four top members of the House and Senate intelligence committees. An additional meeting was scheduled for Wednesday for any members of the Gang of Eight who had not yet seen the complaint, AP reported.
AP also noted that while some details of the dispute have been reported by other news outlets, the AP said it could not immediately confirm those accounts. The report said the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, among others, reported that the complaint stemmed from a call involving foreign nationals that mentioned someone close to President Donald Trump and was intercepted by the National Security Agency, but that AP could not confirm those elements Monday.
In its Monday letter, however, Gabbard’s office centered on a narrower and immediate issue: how the complaint’s representative could participate in Congress without risking exposure of top-secret information.