Tulsi Gabbard, The Five Eyes, And How Far We Have To Go

“Imagine where we sit today, with all the things going on around the world, and the President has to have the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, his own intelligence board, all making sure the intelligence is not weaponized. I mean, it’s rather incredible, this is something that is unprecedented in the United States of America.”

Devin Nunes, Chairman, President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB)

According to CBS News, on July 20, 2025, DNI Tulsi Gabbard directed American intelligence agencies not to share intelligence on the Ukraine peace negotiations even with our closest allies, the other members of the so-called Five Eyes: Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These English-speaking nations have historically had a unique relationship with the United States in the world of intelligence gathering.

Gabbard took this action because she was concerned that our intelligence agencies might pass to these other nations sensitive intelligence on the ongoing negotiations that would be harmful to our national interests and negatively impact the President’s efforts to bring the Ukraine-Russia conflict to an end. In practice, what this means is that she directed that all such intelligence be marked NOFORN, a designator that means the intelligence product in question cannot be passed to any foreign entity.

That may seem like the kind of routine administrative action that happens every day, but if you think about it in the context of how the Intelligence Community (IC) works, the fact that Gabbard had to do this is very troubling. All intelligence products are categorized in some fashion in accordance with their sensitivity and their source. Intelligence concerning ongoing negotiations by the President of the United States with the heads of state of Ukraine and Russia and involving multiple European nations would, in the course of business, ALWAYS be categorized as NOFORN. It would be essentially unthinkable that any American intelligence agency would have intelligence on something of this sensitivity, directly involving the President, and then pass that information to a foreign power.

And yet, Gabbard did not find it unthinkable. She felt it necessary to step in personally and issue an order forbidding the passage of this intelligence. Which tells you something very troubling about where we are, and brings us to the quote from Devin Nunes above.

Nunes is the head of the PIAB. This board is supposed to sit apart from the day-to-day activities of the IC and provide guidance regarding the “big picture” and long-term, structural issues.

“The PIAB exists exclusively to assist the President by providing him with an independent source of advice on the effectiveness with which the Intelligence Community is meeting the Nation’s intelligence needs, and the vigor and insight with which the community plans for the future.”

Nunes provides advice directly to the President regarding the status of the IC and how well it is doing its job. At the top of his list of concerns is the “weaponization” of our intelligence apparatus. Put simply, he no longer takes for granted that our intelligence agencies are playing for the same team. He has been forced to accept that individuals within this community are working against the Commander in Chief.

Reaction to Gabbard’s order amongst the President’s critics and the defenders of the Deep State has been predictable.

“These exchanges have been open and productive for nearly 80 years, helping the U.S. and its allies form a common picture of global threats and to develop paths to successful negotiations with adversaries. In light of this, the decision by Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. Director of National Intelligence, not to share information on the Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations with the Five Eyes is inexplicable.”

Charles A. Ray, member of Steady State

"In general, the value of the Five Eyes intelligence partnership is that when we are making and they are making policy decisions, we can both augment each other's intelligence and therefore know more about the plans, intentions, and capabilities of our adversaries."

"Among the reasons for that sort of default is the expectation that we and the other four are all sitting on the same side of the table with some other adversary on the other side.”

Steve Cash, head of Steady State

"Shutting our most trusted partners off from intelligence assessments could have a chilling effect on critical intelligence sharing if our partners believe they're being shut out of key access — including on key matters in their region. They could decide to take similar steps toward the U.S."

"Policy-wise, if our Five Eyes partners think they are being shut off from key information, they could choose to create new structures and channels without us. A lack of full collaboration with our closest partners could lead them to discuss matters impacting our national security without our input and perspective."

Samantha Vinograd, one of the 37 former national security officials whose clearance was just pulled by DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

All of this amounts to the same old line. The “experts” in the IC know best. When those pesky elected officials or their appointees start making decisions or trying to exert control, only bad things happen.

“Trust us.”

But no one does anymore. That’s the point. The Director of National Intelligence just had to step in and issue an order that would ordinarily be considered completely unnecessary. In effect, she had to say in writing, “Do not pass sensitive intelligence that could be harmful to American national security to any foreign nation.”

That tells you something very troubling about where we stand and how far we have to go.