A recent Wall Street Journal article claimed that Tulsi Gabbard’s decision to revoke the security clearance of CIA officer Julia Gurganus had alarmed the CIA. Gabbard, according to the article by national security reporter Brett Forrest, was reportedly unaware that Gurganus had been working undercover. The piece raised concerns within the CIA about Gabbard’s handling of the situation, citing sources who suggested that the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) had not properly consulted with the CIA before releasing the list of revoked clearances.

However, multiple sources have since refuted these claims. The Federalist reported that there had been coordination between the Office of the DNI, CIA, and other agencies before the revocation. These sources also stated that no agency raised concerns over the decision to revoke Gurganus’ clearance, and the CIA did not express alarm, contrary to what was reported.

The WSJ piece also highlighted the alleged discontent of CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who was said to be unhappy about the public nature of Gurganus’ clearance revocation. However, a CIA spokeswoman later denied this characterization, emphasizing that the CIA’s focus remained on national security priorities and eradicating intelligence politicization.

Julia Gurganus, who is well known in the intelligence community, has had a significant career, including serving as an expert on Russia and Eurasia from 2014 to 2017. She has also worked for prestigious organizations such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and has made numerous public appearances.

The article also mentioned Larry Pfeiffer, a former CIA chief of staff under President Obama, who criticized Gabbard for not consulting with the CIA. Pfeiffer’s credibility was questioned, as he had previously been part of the group of intelligence officials who falsely claimed that Hunter Biden’s laptop was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

Furthermore, Gurganus’ involvement in the politicized Intelligence Community Assessment that fueled the Trump-Russia collusion narrative was highlighted. Critics suggest that her past actions and affiliations may raise questions about her objectivity and motivations in the current controversy.