Why Tulsi Gabbard’s AI surveillance push is raising alarm inside the US intelligence community

“They wanted access to everybody’s systems,” said one official familiar with the request. “The idea seemed naive — and dangerous.”

So far, no major agency has complied. Intelligence leaders have reportedly asked DIG officials to justify why they need the information. The requested access would be at the “system administrator” level — effectively granting unfettered entry to agency data and communications.

From watchdog to weapon?

Critics say the DIG could be used to target officials deemed disloyal to Trump, especially those who worked under the previous administration or who challenged White House narratives. That possibility has sparked fears of politicization from within the intelligence community itself.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he had “real cause for concern,” warning that efforts to “root out politicization” could themselves create echo chambers or open counterintelligence risks.

Tulsi Gabbard’s office disputes that characterization. Spokesperson Olivia Coleman said the DIG is simply enforcing executive orders and increasing transparency. “Under the leadership of President Trump, DNI Gabbard and her team at ODNI are daring to do what no other has done before — expose the truth and end the politicization and weaponization of intelligence against Americans,” she said.

Privacy concerns and political fallout

Gabbard, once a vocal opponent of electronic surveillance, now finds herself at the centre of an effort that many inside the intelligence world see as invasive and inconsistent with her past positions. As a member of Congress, she supported a pardon for Edward Snowden and decried mass surveillance programs as threats to civil liberties. But now, critics say, she’s overseeing the creation of what could become a vast, AI-analysed database of internal US intelligence communications — potentially including information on US citizens.

“She’d be creating a giant database that includes info on US persons, that she herself fought against for decades,” said a former intelligence official.

Adding to the concern, the DIG has enlisted a Wyoming-based company, Mojave Research Inc., to deploy AI tools on agency data — a move that some fear could lead to accidental exposure or mixing of compartmentalized intelligence.

A controversial tenure and chilling effect

In her five months as DNI, Gabbard has fired or reassigned multiple senior analysts, mischaracterized declassified reports to support political narratives, and pushed for leak investigations into press coverage critical of the administration. When a classified intelligence assessment concluded that Venezuela was not directing a US invasion via the Tren de Aragua prison gang, her office sought to revise the findings — and then removed two top officials after the report leaked.

The shakeup has left many intelligence professionals demoralized. “People are thinking, ‘I thought our whole point was to be an honest broker and speak truth to power,’” said a former senior official.

Looking ahead

While Gabbard and her supporters defend the DIG as a necessary tool to uncover waste, bias, and bureaucratic resistance, others warn it may do lasting harm. “The use of modern analytical capability is essential,” Coleman said, but she did not address how sensitive data would be protected or how misuse would be prevented.

The intelligence community now faces a high-stakes balancing act: complying with executive orders while preserving its independence and credibility. And with DIG’s requests still under review, the debate over how far political appointees can go in accessing national security systems is only beginning.