What happened today? Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced she’s revoking security clearances for 37 current and former “intelligence professionals,” alleging they “politicized and manipulated intelligence.” She insisted the move was made at President Trump’s direction.
Let’s unpack this with surgical precision—because this isn’t a policy shift. This is the messy performance art of authoritarianism. Except the canvas is the U.S. national security apparatus.
The “Who” Is the Punchline
The list included officials ranging from current experts to people who may not have even been intelligence professionals, raising obvious questions.
This move fits a familiar Trump-era pattern: purging Obama-era intel figures and attempting to rewrite the narrative around Russiagate.
Let’s pause here: if your target list includes people whose clearance status isn’t even confirmed, you’re not firing a purge—you’re giving a firing squad a blank scroll and watching it scribble nonsense.
Because the most absurd part is pretending this is about professionalism. In Trump-DNI land, excellence is disloyalty, service is suspect, and dissent is a barred offense.
“Chilling Dissent” Isn’t a Metaphor, It’s the Briefing Title
Nonpartisan lawyers are calling this move potentially unconstitutional. The executive branch does have discretion over clearances—but when you strip 37 people, en masse, without individual hearings, it looks less like discretion and more like a performance piece called Chilling Dissent: Live at the ODNI.
Here’s the structural irony: an action allegedly meant to protect national security is undermining it. Intelligence only works when truth can pierce your bubble, when professionals feel safe telling you why the empire is crumbling. Pulling their clearance because you don’t like their testimony is like dismantling the smoke detector because it goes off when the stove’s overheated.
Reframing History, One Revocation at a Time
Make no mistake: This isn’t just about public servants. It’s about a referendum on the 2017 intelligence assessment. That report said Russia interfered in our election through bots, hacks, and memes—but might not have flipped vote tallies. It was nuanced. Somewhere along the line, nuanced became offensive.
Gabbard’s purge turns that complexity into treason. She called the assessment part of a “treasonous conspiracy.” Trump praises her for it. Democrats call it “baseless” and “politically motivated.”
Let’s be clear: Once you say a report equals treason, you don’t just erase documents. You erase dissent. That’s not ideological clarity—it’s authoritarian comfort food.
The List: A Hall of Shame or Confused Clipboard?
The list included a former Obama NSC spokesperson, Biden’s global COVID response coordinator, and others whose security roles were unclear.
In short: the only thing unanimous here is confusion. I almost respect that. It’s rare to see a professional scandal presented with such unintentional comedic timing.
Because when your purge list reads like a congressional teaser—coming soon to a court near you—you’ve moved past governance into parody.
Trump’s Revenge Tour Rolls On
This isn’t just Gabbard. It’s part of a clear Trumpian pattern. Earlier this year, Gabbard had already stripped Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, Monaco, and dozens more of their clearances.
They are canceling dissent the way we cancel bad sitcoms: Once the crowd says no, fade to black. No FCC fine required.
Legal Bile and Bureaucratic Violence
Security clearances used to be about trust and confidentiality. Now they’re a weapon. Think about it: losing clearance not only silences you—it hurts your future career prospects. Many private-sector jobs require it. So this is a punishment-and-penalty in one.
Imagine working your whole career on covert missions—then being undone by a Twitter scroll. This isn’t oversight—it’s performative retribution.
Resistance is Still Possible
There’s legal recourse. And it’s not just about reinstating privileges; it’s about defending institutions. National security can’t thrive when dissenters are punished for having opinions. That’s not vigilance—it’s vengefulness.
Some of those stripped were out of government already—meaning, if you thought this was just about personnel, guess again. This is about rewriting public memory, making sure history remembers not who acted on intelligence, but who acted against it.
And the rest of us? We’re the coerced audience in this drama, expected to clap and call it patriotism.
The Cultural Shift: From Investigation to Erasure
What’s striking is how seamless this purge feels in Trump’s America. Russiagate skeptics long demanded “both sides” to be heard. Now you’ll see why that demand gets you un-cleared. Now complaining about manipulations of intel makes you the problem.
In a regime that weaponizes truth, silence is the only admissible uniform. Gabbard just shrunk a room full of dissenters. And she made it happen under spotlights.
The Bee’s Final Stinger
Let me be clear: I don’t lament incompetence—I mourn the loss of truth. When intelligence professionals can be un-cleared for telling reality, we’re not building security. We’re building a mausoleum.
So here’s your harsh, antiseptic closing: This isn’t policy. It’s a medium-burning bush. You can’t interrogate the narrative. You can only watch it twist into something unrecognizable.
The clearances revoked didn’t just deny access—they denied memory, accountability, future reflection.
And if you let that stand “because turnover,” then next time it won’t be intelligence—it’ll be the constitution itself.