Trump's Intelligence Shakeup Quietly Ends After Alleged Missteps

37 current and former intelligence officials lost their security clearances in one fell swoop. Most were Democrats. The organization targeting them? Tulsi Gabbard's Director's Initiatives Group (DIG), a task force she created to "root out politicization" from spy agencies.

Now that same organization has been quietly dissolved. While Gabbard told Reuters it was "always meant to be temporary," two sources point to alleged missteps as the real reason. What went wrong with Trump's ambitious intelligence overhaul?

A Year-Long Mission Ends Abruptly

The DIG launched last year with a declared mission to depoliticize America's intelligence community. Critics immediately labeled it a "witch hunt" for intelligence officers deemed disloyal to Trump. The reality, as often happens in Washington, proved more complex.

The task force did deliver some tangible results. It declassified files related to John F. Kennedy's assassination and helped implement Trump's executive orders quickly after he took office. But its most controversial work centered on 2016 election documents.

Gabbard alleged that former President Barack Obama had intelligence officials fabricate assessments claiming Russia sought to help Trump win. However, this claim was contradicted by a 2025 CIA review, a 2018 bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who indicted 25 Russians for election interference. Obama denied any wrongdoing.

When Intelligence Work Goes Wrong

The "missteps" cited by sources were serious enough to warrant shutting down the operation. According to these sources, the DIG mistakenly linked an innocent federal security worker to pipe bombs planted outside Democratic and Republican party headquarters on the eve of the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.

Even more concerning was an incident involving a CIA officer serving undercover overseas. Sources say the officer's identity was nearly exposed during the process of revoking security clearances for 37 officials. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence denied revealing the officer's identity, arguing they didn't specify agency affiliation—but in the intelligence world, such distinctions can be dangerously thin.

Congress had grown increasingly suspicious of the secretive structure. In December, lawmakers passed legislation requiring Gabbard to provide a classified report detailing the DIG's leadership, staffing, and hiring practices. She missed the January deadline and still hasn't delivered the information.

Election Security or Overreach?

The timing of the DIG's dissolution raises additional questions. It came shortly after revelations that Gabbard personally attended a January 28FBI raid that seized ballot boxes and materials from a Georgia county's election archive. Reuters also reported that her office oversaw an investigation into Puerto Rico voting machines last year, taking possession of an unspecified number of them.

The White House defends these actions as legitimate election security reviews. But Democratic congressional leaders argue Gabbard has exceeded her spy agency's mandate and warn the Trump administration could be laying groundwork to interfere in future elections.

Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Reuters last year he suspected the DIG was conducting a "witch hunt" for intelligence officers it deemed disloyal to Trump, though he didn't cite specific evidence.

The Broader Questions

The DIG's brief existence highlights tensions that extend far beyond one administration. Intelligence agencies have long struggled with the balance between serving elected leaders and maintaining professional independence. The 2016 election investigations created deep partisan divisions about the intelligence community's role and credibility.

Advocates argue the task force accomplished important transparency goals, pointing to the JFK file releases and swift implementation of presidential directives. Critics see it as evidence of how intelligence tools can be weaponized for political purposes, regardless of the stated mission.