Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has stripped 37 current and former intelligence officials of their security clearances, a sweeping move carried out under President Trump’s direction that has liberals furious at losing more power.
The revocations, first reported by the New York Post, include several officials with ties to the Biden administration. Among them is Maher Bitar, a longtime aide to Rep. Adam Schiff, from California, during Trump’s first impeachment inquiry who later served on the National Security Council (NSC). Bitar, now back in Schiff’s office, has drawn sustained criticism from right-wing activist Laura Loomer, who has publicly questioned his clearance status. Others targeted include Emily Horne, a former NSC spokesperson under Biden, and Brett Holmgren, the former assistant secretary of State for intelligence and research, who is married to ex-Biden White House counsel Dana Remus.
Gabbard accused the officials of “committing intentional egregious violations of tradecraft standards” and of politicizing or leaking intelligence. Without offering evidence, she declared in a post on X: “Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right. 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. In doing so, they undermine our national security, the safety and security of the American people and the foundational principles of our democratic republic.”
Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right. 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. In… pic.twitter.com/23DUNuVAi0
— DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) August 19, 2025
Larry Pfeiffer, former CIA chief of staff and senior director of the White House Situation Room, warned that the decision undermines U.S. intelligence. “The skill and talent that Trump and Gabbard deprive the US national security and intelligence communities, govt & private sector, is huge. Makes one wonder who they are really working for, directly, indirectly, or as useful idiots,” he wrote, according to The Hill.
The list also includes Beth Sanner, a former national security official turned CNN analyst who served under Trump, as well as Charles Kupchan, a former NSC official under Presidents Clinton and Obama, and Sarah Vinograd, who served under both Obama and Biden.
In 2020, Democrats deployed several former intelligence officers to use their clout to cover up Hunter Biden’s corruption, which needed a pardon from his father. In July, leaders at the CIA, FBI, and DNI released documents showing that Obama intelligence officers perpetuated a smear campaign designed to make it appear that Donald Trump had worked with Russia to win the White House.
New Conservative Post reported that “among the most damning findings is the inclusion of disputed material from a former British spy—a reference widely understood to mean Christopher Steele—whose work had been financed by opponents of then-candidate Trump. Despite internal warnings that the source lacked credibility and that corroboration was insufficient, the review found that CIA leadership insisted on incorporating the material, thereby injecting a partisan element into what was billed as a neutral intelligence product.
In another departure from standard practice, the assessment was carried out by a narrow, handpicked group of analysts and excluded input from other major intelligence agencies. The report’s release—just weeks before the Trump administration took office—coincided with a media firestorm and contributed to the public narrative that the incoming president’s legitimacy was compromised. Analysts involved in the new review now suggest that external pressure, including from political leadership and the press, likely shaped the conclusions drawn.”
Veterans of the intelligence community caution that the episode sets a perilous precedent—one in which intelligence is shaped to match a political narrative rather than produced through a rigorous and dispassionate process. Critics contend that the resulting report not only intensified partisan divides at home but also fueled needless diplomatic friction with Russia, heightening global tensions on the basis of evidence that may have been flawed or incomplete.
[Read More: More Outrage At Nation’s Strangest School District]
