Legal experts warn Tulsi Gabbard may have violated the law in her bold decision to remove security clearances for scores of officials, which has caused swift criticism.
The former congresswoman from Hawaii, who is now a Trump loyalist, disclosed that the president had ordered the revocation of the clearances of 37 current and former officials, accusing them without proof of leaking sensitive material, politicizing intelligence, and breaking professional norms. However, the announcement’s public form has sparked criticism from individuals who believe she went too far in the law.
When Gabbard shared a memo from her office on X, identifying the people whose clearances were being revoked, the purge became public. Intelligence officers who came to the conclusion that Russia meddled in the 2016 election are apparently on the list, along with others who far-right activist Laura Loomer has accused of not being loyal to Trump. The action is reminiscent of Trump’s previous attempts to deny security clearances to political opponents while he was president. However, the scope and public designation of the targets are causing concern this time.
37 security clearances are revoked by Tulsi Gabbard due to the Obama-ordered intelligence report that started Russiagate.TnkI9X5rtpic.twitter.com/2Bqxx3mRLe
August 19, 2025, New York Post (@nypost).
Mark Zaid, a prominent lawyer for national security experts and intelligence agents, cautioned that Gabbard’s public revelation might be illegal. Can you cite a violation of the Privacy Act? “I definitely can,” Zaid commented on X, referring to the names’ dissemination as another evidence of politicization and weaponization. He emphasized that many of the individuals on the list are career civil servants who have served in several administrations rather than well-known individuals.
Later, Zaid informed Axio that security clearance data are kept in a system of records that are protected by the Privacy Act and cannot be made public without the individual’s permission. He clarified that without the individual’s express consent or the presence of a Routine Use—which, in my opinion, does not exist for this purpose—the government cannot just share that information. According to his remarks, Gabbard’s memo might be the subject of legal challenges, which could make Trump’s larger attempt to restructure the intelligence agency more difficult.
Can you cite a violation of the Privacy Act?
Of course I can. More evidence of politics and weaponization.
The great majority of these people are devoted public servants who have served in several presidential administrations but are not well-known.This link: https://t.co/B1IW8RBgNl
August 19, 2025, Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq)
According to reports, some of the officials on the targeted list signed a letter endorsing Trump’s first impeachment trial, in which he was charged with attempting to prevent Ukraine from receiving military aid until President Volodymyr Zelensky agreed to launch an investigation against Hunter Biden. Loomer, the far-right conspiracy theorist who has praised the purge and claimed credit for exposing disloyal Trump officials, has singled out others on the list. In response to Gabbard’s statement, Loomer posted a celebratory message online right away.
The story demonstrates the political aspect of the purge and how fringe activists shaped Trump’s national security and intelligence strategy. Although Gabbard has presented herself as a soldier executing the president’s order to eliminate politicized intelligence officers, her choice to make names public has given detractors a possible legal avenue. Since he is suing the Trump administration to get his clearance back after it was removed, Zaid has personal experience fighting for clearances. In the run-up to the 2020 election, he previously defended the whistleblower who said that Trump had pressured Ukraine to gather information about Joe Biden.
Breaking: DNI Tulsi Gabbard just appeared on Fox for a second time, and this time, WOW! Russiagate is not something she is playing around with.
The liberal hackers despise her because she is fully aware of Russiagate!
Share this video so that everyone is aware of the truth; it’s well worth watching!eApU9UuX2d pic.twitter.com/
August 20, 2025, Gunther Eagleman (@GuntherEagleman)
In Gabbard’s drive to fire intelligence personnel she and Trump accuse of being disloyal, the scandal represents an early setback. Serious concerns over legality, privacy rights, and the politicization of national security are now being raised by what was first meant as a show of power and retaliation against longtime detractors. It’s unclear if the courts will step in, but the criticism is already clouding Gabbard’s well-publicized action.
