Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has made serious allegations against The Washington Post and one of its national security reporters, Ellen Nakashima. In a statement released on social media, Gabbard accused Nakashima of engaging in harassment and deceptive practices by using a burner phone to contact members of her intelligence staff and requesting sensitive information without proper identification.
Gabbard asserted that Nakashima deliberately avoided the established press office channels, choosing instead to directly approach intelligence officers. This, according to Gabbard, constituted inappropriate and potentially compromising behavior. The DNI further claimed that Nakashima had previously harassed her family in Hawaii, an incident Gabbard described as "stalking."
The accusations come against a backdrop of previous tensions between Gabbard and the newspaper. Gabbard suggested that the Post had escalated its conduct following an earlier incident where it published leaked classified information. She insinuated that the paper's latest actions were part of a broader political campaign aimed at undermining President Donald Trump's administration.
Gabbard's allegations were met with a swift response from The Washington Post. Executive Editor Matt Murray issued a statement defending Nakashima's integrity and professionalism, rejecting the idea that her journalistic methods amounted to harassment. Murray emphasized that direct contact with potential sources is a standard part of journalistic work and is essential for holding the government accountable.
Despite this defense, Gabbard's deputy chief of staff, Alexa Henning, took to social media to express dissatisfaction with the Post's statement, labeling it as "not a denial." The DNI's team also referenced past incidents where they believed the Post had crossed ethical lines in its coverage of Gabbard and her associates. For instance, in November, following Gabbard's nomination as DNI, her former chief of staff accused a Post reporter of intrusive behavior.
Adding to the controversy, Gabbard recently commented on reports by CNN and The New York Times regarding U.S. airstrikes on Iran. These reports, based on anonymous sources, suggested that the impact of the strikes was less significant than what was initially presented by the Trump administration. Gabbard clarified that the intelligence community's full assessment was still pending and that conclusions might shift as more data becomes available.
The ongoing dispute between Gabbard and The Washington Post raises critical questions about journalistic ethics, the boundaries of reporting, and the protection of national security. It underscores the delicate balance between the press's role in scrutinizing government actions and the need for responsible handling of sensitive information.
