Tulsi Gabbard has revoked the security clearance for Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and more.

Do you support Tulsi Gabbard for this?

Yes or No?

In a bold and unprecedented move, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has revoked the security clearances of several high-profile political figures, including Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and others. This decision has sparked both discussion and optimism among those advocating for greater accountability and integrity in the management of sensitive national security information. At the heart of DNI Gabbard’s decision is a deep commitment to protecting America’s most classified information. Security clearances are a privilege, not a right, and the process of granting and maintaining them must be above reproach. By revoking clearances from former officials no longer serving in roles that require access to sensitive data, Gabbard is sending a clear message: the nation’s security comes before politics or personal legacy.

For years, many Americans have expressed concern over the retention of security clearances by former officials, especially those who have since entered the private sector or become media commentators. Critics have argued that this practice risks the politicization of national security and creates unnecessary vulnerabilities. Gabbard’s decisive action restores public confidence that the intelligence community is focused solely on safeguarding the nation, rather than serving personal or political agendas.

By applying this policy to individuals across the political spectrum, Gabbard demonstrates a nonpartisan commitment to security. Whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent, no one is above the standards set forth to protect classified information. This even-handed approach reassures the public that national security protocols are administered fairly and without favoritism.

The global security landscape is evolving, with threats arising not just from rival nations, but also from cyberattacks, insider leaks, and the rapid spread of information. Gabbard’s decision reflects a forward-thinking approach that recognizes the need to modernize security clearance procedures to meet 21st-century challenges. Tightening access to classified material ensures that only those with an immediate and ongoing need-to-know can view the nation’s most sensitive secrets.CONTINUE READING