Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, has now reportedly publicly rebuked a reporter from The Washington Post this week, accusing him of persistently harassing members of her staff through repeated emails, phone calls, and voicemails.
The incident has sparked debate over the boundaries between aggressive journalism and undue pressure on public officials, especially those in sensitive national security roles.
In a series of posts on social media, Ms. Gabbard — who was appointed by President Trump earlier this year — claimed that the reporter’s conduct amounted to a “coordinated harassment campaign” aimed at undermining her leadership.
Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman and 2020 presidential candidate, now oversees the nation’s intelligence apparatus, placing her at the center of sensitive geopolitical decision-making.
“This is not investigative journalism,” Gabbard wrote on the platform X, formerly known as Twitter. “This is harassment under the guise of reporting — a blatant effort to intimidate and distract those working to keep our country safe.”
Screenshots posted by Gabbard appeared to show a flood of messages from the journalist, seeking comment on her handling of internal agency disputes and alleged staffing decisions.
Her office characterized the outreach as “excessive and inappropriate,” asserting that it disrupted the workflow of senior intelligence staff and created a climate of intimidation.
The Washington Post, in a brief statement, defended its journalist’s conduct, stating that the inquiries were part of a standard fact-finding process related to a forthcoming article on intelligence community leadership.
“Our reporter reached out to DNI Gabbard’s office through normal professional channels and at reasonable hours,” the statement read. “We stand by the integrity of our newsroom and its commitment to accountability reporting.”
The clash underscores a broader tension between the national security establishment and the press — particularly under an administration that has often positioned itself at odds with mainstream media outlets.
Gabbard, known for her unorthodox views and frequent criticisms of foreign policy consensus, has become a polarizing figure in Washington, attracting both fervent support and sharp criticism.
Analysts say the confrontation may be emblematic of a shifting media landscape, in which the traditional rules of engagement between public officials and journalists are increasingly contested.
While Gabbard’s defenders see her pushback as a defense of professionalism and institutional integrity, critics warn that labeling press inquiries as harassment could set a troubling precedent.
As of Thursday evening, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence had not confirmed whether it would take further action or limit press access in response to the episode.
[READ MORE: CBS Settles Lawsuit Brought Against it by Trump for $16 Million]
