Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard made headlines by referring multiple intelligence community leakers to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution.

Gabbard accused these individuals of being “deep-state criminals” who leaked classified information for partisan political purposes to undermine President Donald Trump’s agenda.

According to multiple sources, Gabbard announced that she had submitted two criminal referrals to the DOJ, with a third referral pending, targeting intelligence community members accused of leaking classified information.

She described these leakers as “deep-state criminals” acting to sabotage President Trump’s policy objectives.

Gabbard expressed her intent to collaborate with Attorney General Pam Bondi and other officials, such as Kash Patel, to ensure prosecution.

Her statements were direct, accusing the leakers of treasonous behavior wrapped in bureaucratic cover, as noted in posts on X.

A post on X by @nicksortor emphasized Gabbard’s call to “lock them up” and set an example, reflecting her strong stance against the leakers.

Another post by @WarClandestine highlighted Gabbard’s blunt language and her commitment to working with the DOJ, underscoring the gravity of her accusations.

These referrals mark a significant escalation in Gabbard’s ongoing campaign to expose and address alleged misconduct within the intelligence community.

Gabbard’s recent actions align with her previous criticisms of the so-called “deep state.”

Earlier in 2025, she made headlines by classifying former CIA Director John Brennan and former Representative Adam Schiff as “domestic enemies” of the United States, as reported by @Real_RobN on X. She accused them of perpetuating the Russia collusion narrative, which she described as a hoax.

A post by @overton_news on April 9, 2025, noted that Gabbard’s team was actively investigating the origins of the Russia collusion claims, signaling her intent to dismantle what she perceives as entrenched corruption within intelligence and political circles.

Additionally, a January 30, 2025, post by @MJTruthUltra highlighted Gabbard’s evisceration of the “deep state” and the military-industrial complex during an opening statement.

She cited historical abuses, such as the 51 intelligence officials who falsely claimed Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation, and former DNI James Clapper’s role in mass surveillance programs.

These actions frame Gabbard’s recent referrals as part of a broader effort to reform the intelligence community and hold powerful figures accountable.

Gabbard’s referrals have sparked polarized reactions. Supporters, particularly on X, have praised her as a bold reformer taking on entrenched power structures.

For instance, @Mar50cC5O described her actions as a “full-throttle takedown” of the deep state, framing the leaks as treasonous. Similarly, @MAGAVoice lauded Gabbard for exposing how the deep state manipulates public perception by justifying civil liberties violations under the guise of national security.

However, critics argue that Gabbard’s rhetoric risks politicizing the intelligence community and could undermine legitimate whistleblower protections.

No mainstream news outlets cited in this report explicitly corroborated Gabbard’s claims of “deep-state criminals,” suggesting a lack of independent verification at this stage.

The absence of detailed evidence in public reports, as noted in the X posts, leaves room for skepticism about the specifics of the alleged leaks and their motivations.

Gabbard’s referrals signal a confrontational approach to intelligence community oversight, potentially reshaping the relationship between the DNI and career intelligence officials.

Her collaboration with figures like Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, known for their loyalty to Trump, suggests a coordinated effort to align intelligence operations with the administration’s priorities.

However, the success of these prosecutions depends on the DOJ’s ability to substantiate Gabbard’s claims with concrete evidence, which has not yet been made public.

The polarized reactions on X reflect broader divisions in public trust toward the intelligence community.

Gabbard’s actions could galvanize supporters of Trump’s agenda while alienating those who view the intelligence community as a bulwark against external threats.

As investigations proceed, further disclosures about the nature of the leaks and the identities of the accused could clarify the validity of Gabbard’s allegations.