Why do you present an article from RawStory that does nothing more than echo an article from The Guardian?
Here's the actual story from The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/20/tulsi-gabbard-white-house-security-clearances
So...let's talk about this story, eh?
First off, "according to three people familiar with matter". Typical. Unnamed sources. We've seen this so many times before that EVERYONE'S first reaction is...fake news. (that is, everyone who is not a useful idiot)
Next, the article say this: "there appeared to be no paper trail from the president directing the effort". Even if true, so what? Do you think there HAS to be a paper trail?
"White House not having an opportunity to closely vet the list before it became public". Again, so what? Who says the WH even WANTED to "closely vet the list"?
"at least one of whom was a top adviser to Ratcliffe". Gabbard is over Ratcliffe in the pecking order. If Ratcliffe has heartburn over Gabbard's actions, then he can go talk to her. The article carefully ignores whether he did that or not.
"The list also included two Democratic congressional staffers – Maher Bitar, the national security adviser to senator Adam Schiff, and Thomas West, an aide on the Senate foreign relations committee – prompting fears the administration would be thrust into a messy separation-of-powers issue." Too ****ing bad and, given Shiffty's actions, good move.
Now, to The Guardian's credit...though it's probably designed to cover their ass...they did present the administration's take on this issue. As is typical, they presented this at the very end of their article.
A senior intelligence official disputed this account and said Gabbard told Trump in the Oval Office that she had compiled names of officers who had worked on the intelligence assessments on Russia’s malign influence operations during the 2016 election who should be fired.
Trump replied to Gabbard that if those people had worked on the Russia intelligence assessments and they were still employed in the federal government, they should be removed, and Gabbard was merely executing the president’s agenda, the intelligence official said.
The intelligence official also claimed the list was emailed to the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles; the White House counsel, David Warrington; communications chiefs Steven Cheung and Taylor Budowich; the national security council; and the chiefs of staff at every major intelligence agency.
“The CIA just wants to blame ODNI all the time,” the official said.
A White House spokesperson did not address whether there had been advance notice or when the emails were sent but said in a statement: “Director Gabbard is doing a phenomenal job and the White House has worked closely with her on implementing the President’s objectives.
“The entire administration is aligned on ensuring those who have weaponized their clearances to manipulate intelligence, leak classified intelligence without authorization, and many other egregious acts are held to account,” the spokesperson said.