Gabbard Fires Back Over Election Claims

Adriana Stone 0 3 min read

Gabbard Fires Back Over Election Claims

Tulsi Gabbard isn’t staying quiet. She pushed back after members of Congress and parts of the media questioned her visit to Fulton County during the execution of a search warrant tied to 2020 election evidence.

Some lawmakers blasted the move. NBC reported that Senator Mark Warner “sharply criticized” the presence of the DNI in Fulton County and said, in part:

“Warner said there were only two explanations for national intelligence director’s trip: either Gabbard believed the case had a link to foreign intelligence, and she failed to abide by her legal obligation to inform congressional committees about it, or she was tarnishing the nonpartisan reputation of the intelligence agencies with a “domestic political stunt designed to legitimize conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy.”

“Either scenario,” Warner added, “represents a serious breach of trust and a dereliction of duty to the solemn office which she holds.”

Others piled on. David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation and Research told reporters:

“The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has no domestic responsibilities. There is no reason for the director of national intelligence to be in any kind of voting site. She has neither the authority nor the competence to assess anything in that voting site. And so it’s incredibly troubling to see something like that.”

Becker and CEIR are no small footnote. CEIR got major funding in 2020 and has been involved in maintaining voter rolls. That context is part of why this visit drew loud criticism.

Gabbard’s response was blunt and public. She put a statement on social media and attached a letter to Congress explaining her view of the legal authorities she relied on. She wrote, exactly,

“Contrary to the blatantly false and slanderous accusations being made against me by Members of Congress and their friends in the propaganda media, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has and will continue to take action under my statutory authorities to secure our nation and ensure the integrity of our elections,”

In the letter Gabbard spelled out her position in plain language. She said her presence was at the President’s request and within her statutory authority. She wrote:

“My presence was requested by the President and executed under my broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate, and analyze intelligence related to election security, including counterintelligence (CI), foreign and other malign influence and cybersecurity. The FBI’s intelligence/Counterintelligence divisions are one of the 18 elements that I oversee,”

and added:

“In twelve FBI Field Offices across the country, including the Atlanta Field Office, the senior FBI official (Assistant Director in Charge or Special Agent in Charge) is dual-hatted as my Domestic DNI-Representative. The Domestic DNI-Rep program was established in 2011 through a Memorandum of Understanding between the ODNI and the FBI.”

She also said the Office of General Counsel at ODNI reviewed her actions and found them “to be consistent and well within my statutory authorities as the Director of National Intelligence.”

Gabbard framed election security as national security. In her words:

“The President and his Administration are committed to safeguarding the integrity of U.S. elections to ensure that neither foreign nor domestic powers undermine the American people’s right to determine who our elected leaders are.”

She noted ODNI has been reviewing intelligence and assessments on election integrity since she took office. She said National Counterintelligence and Security Center staff traveled with her to Fulton County to support that work, though they weren’t present during the warrant execution.

Gabbard cited legal authorities: Section 102A of the National Security Act of 1947 for broad coordination powers; Section 6508 of the 2020 NDAA for designating a National Counterintelligence Officer in the NCSC; and Executive Order 13848, which directs the DNI to assess foreign interference after federal elections.

She warned that the ODNI won’t share incomplete or politicized assessments. “Searching through intelligence holdings and conducting assessments with analytic rigor and excellence is an arduous and often time-consuming process,” she wrote, saying the product must be independent and based on all available sources.

Gabbard also pointed to Section 501(a)(2) of the National Security Act of 1947, noting the President need not get Congressional approval before initiating significant intelligence activities, and reminding readers she was not aware of the warrant’s contents because it was issued under seal.

The clash sets up a wider fight. Critics say the DNI crossed a line. Gabbard says she stayed inside it, doing what the office is meant to do: look for foreign influence, coordinate intelligence, and protect the vote. Expect lawyers and lawmakers to keep debating which view wins out.

Send this to a friend