Senate Republicans Plan to Block Tulsi Gabbard From Releasing Deep State Intel Files Exposing Crimes

A fierce political battle is erupting in Washington D.C. as credible sources reveal that Senate Republicans on the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee are moving behind closed doors to craft legislation designed to block Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard from continuing her unprecedented declassification of intelligence files.

These files, according to Gabbard and her allies, allegedly expose years of criminal activity within the so-called “deep state” and intelligence community operatives, implicating them in widespread corruption, election interference, and covert schemes aimed at manipulating U.S. politics.

The stunning revelation was shared by John Basham, a former Texas elected official, who took to his X account Monday night to sound the alarm. Basham, citing reliable D.C. sources, warned that Senate Republicans, under the leadership of Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, are actively crafting legislative measures that would restrict Gabbard’s ability to access, review, and release classified files that reveal explosive misconduct within federal agencies.

Basham’s post quickly went viral, igniting outrage across conservative circles and sparking accusations that the Republican establishment is attempting to protect entrenched government powers from exposure, even at the expense of transparency and accountability.

The move by Cotton and his Republican colleagues marks a significant escalation in the growing tension between Congress and Gabbard, who has made transparency in intelligence operations a cornerstone of her tenure as Director of National Intelligence.

Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii who has since distanced herself from the Democratic Party, has been leading a relentless effort to declassify a range of documents related to intelligence abuses, particularly those tied to the so-called “Russiagate” narrative and covert actions against former President Donald Trump.

Gabbard’s disclosures so far have already rocked Washington to its core. Among her releases are memos and assessments indicating that top Obama-era officials, including intelligence leaders and political operatives, were aware that Russian interference in the 2016 election did not materially impact vote counts or outcomes.

Moreover, newly declassified intelligence revealed that there were extensive internal doubts within the intelligence community about the narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives.

These revelations have fueled Republican calls for accountability—yet paradoxically, it is now Senate Republicans who appear to be moving to halt Gabbard’s crusade.

Insiders suggest that the legislative proposal being developed would curtail the DNI’s unilateral authority to declassify sensitive intelligence documents without first securing approval from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

This move would effectively place a political filter on Gabbard’s efforts, subjecting future disclosures to the whims of lawmakers—many of whom have vested interests in keeping certain information hidden from the public eye.

The legislation, if passed, could not only block future releases but could also retroactively limit Gabbard’s access to some of the most damning intelligence files reportedly still under review.

The rationale behind this Republican-led maneuver remains unclear, but critics argue that it reveals a bipartisan desire to protect the intelligence establishment from further scrutiny.

The deep state, a term commonly used to describe entrenched bureaucrats and intelligence operatives who operate with little oversight, has long been a target of conservative ire.

However, the Republican establishment’s apparent willingness to shield this apparatus has raised questions about the extent to which both political parties are complicit in preserving the status quo of secrecy and unaccountability.

Senator Tom Cotton, known for his hawkish views on national security, has yet to publicly comment on Basham’s report or the alleged legislative efforts. However, Cotton’s leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee places him in a pivotal position to influence the flow of intelligence information to the public.

His involvement in this potential legislative blockade has drawn swift criticism from grassroots conservatives who view any restriction on Gabbard’s declassification efforts as a betrayal of the movement for transparency.

Tulsi Gabbard herself has not directly responded to the reports of the Senate’s intentions, but she has previously expressed frustration with institutional barriers erected to impede her work.

In a recent interview, Gabbard stated, “Accountability is essential for the future of our country. The American people have a right to know the truth about what has been done in their name, in the shadows, by individuals who have abused their positions of power.”

The timing of this legislative push is particularly suspicious to many observers, coming just as Gabbard prepares to release more files that are said to directly implicate high-ranking intelligence officials and political figures in what she has described as a “seditious conspiracy” against a sitting president.

The forthcoming documents are rumored to include detailed accounts of covert operations designed to sabotage Trump’s presidency, as well as intelligence community efforts to sway public perception through misinformation campaigns.

Republican voters and conservative influencers have taken to social media to denounce the Senate Republicans’ covert actions. Many see this as evidence of the so-called “Uniparty”—the idea that the political elite, regardless of party affiliation, work together to protect their shared interests while disenfranchising the public.

If Gabbard is blocked from continuing her declassification initiative, it would represent a significant victory for the intelligence community in its ongoing battle to maintain secrecy and control over narratives that shape public understanding of government operations.

Compounding the outrage is the perception that the Republican establishment, despite years of rhetoric about draining the swamp and exposing deep state corruption, is now playing an active role in preserving the very institutions they once vowed to reform.

Critics argue that this duplicity underscores why trust in government remains at an all-time low. The base of the Republican Party, increasingly aligned with anti-establishment sentiments, is unlikely to accept such maneuvers without fierce resistance.

Prominent conservative voices have already begun rallying support for Gabbard’s efforts. Influential commentators have urged voters to pressure their senators to oppose any legislation that would limit declassification powers.

Some have gone further, suggesting that any Republican who supports such a measure should be primaried and replaced with candidates committed to full transparency and government accountability.

The battle over declassification is not merely a procedural dispute—it is a fight over the fundamental question of who controls the truth in a democratic society. The ability of the intelligence community to operate in secrecy has long been justified on national security grounds.

Yet, Gabbard and her supporters argue that the real threat to democracy comes not from the disclosure of secrets, but from the abuse of secrecy to shield criminal activity and subvert the will of the people.

Should Gabbard be thwarted in her efforts, it would set a troubling precedent for future directors of national intelligence and whistleblowers within the government.

It would signal that efforts to expose wrongdoing at the highest levels can be stymied not by the perpetrators of the wrongdoing, but by elected officials sworn to serve the public. Such a precedent would entrench the very systems of power and control that have allowed the deep state to flourish with impunity.

For now, all eyes remain on the Senate Intelligence Committee and Senator Tom Cotton. The coming weeks will reveal whether the Republicans on the committee will press forward with their reported plan or face sufficient public backlash to reconsider. Meanwhile, Gabbard’s allies are preparing for a public relations battle, framing the issue as one of patriotism and constitutional responsibility.

If the reports are accurate, the stakes could not be higher. What began as a mission to expose intelligence abuses is rapidly becoming a defining battle over the soul of American governance. Will transparency and accountability prevail, or will the entrenched powers succeed in pulling the veil of secrecy tightly around their operations once more?

John Basham’s warning has sparked a crucial moment of reckoning for the Republican Party and the nation at large. Whether Americans will accept another layer of obstruction shielding the deep state remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: Tulsi Gabbard’s fight to illuminate the hidden corridors of power has only just begun.