Trump’s spy chief accidentally gave Congress a roadmap to investigate him.

Tulsi Gabbard over-explained why she was in Georgia at an FBI raid of an election office, and — in the process — she implicated her boss.

Donald Trump was asked in an NBC interview yesterday why his intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, was caught at an FBI raid in Georgia where agents seized materials tied to the 2020 election. “I don’t know,” he said flatly. But earlier this week, Gabbard sent Congress a long, over-explaining letter justifying why she was there. It included this remarkable line: “My presence was requested by the President.”

Someone here appears to be lying, and the scandal just got worse. What’s more, in trying to explain herself, Gabbard handed Congress a roadmap for investigating Donald Trump. Here’s why.

FIRST, she says Trump sent her to Georgia, which raises very serious questions.

Gabbard didn’t just say she happened to be there. She said the President requested her presence and specifically directed her observation of the search. That’s extraordinary. The Director of National Intelligence does not run criminal investigations. She does not execute search warrants. She does not supervise FBI evidence collection at state election offices.

Either Gabbard is lying, or Trump is. Or possibly both. None of those options are good. But the biggest question is why would the President personally send his spy chief to observe a federal search of a local election facility? If I was still working on Capitol Hill, I would urge that the oversight committees immediately open an investigation (and at least the Democrats, if the Republicans refuse).

If Trump directed this, Congressional investigators need to ask some hard questions, like: Did Trump personally order or influence a federal search of a state election office? Did he do it for partisan political purposes or national security purposes? What did he know in advance about the warrant and its target? Was this search initiated because of intelligence… or because of Trump’s long-standing obsession with “finding” ballots in Georgia? Why did Trump tell NBC he didn’t know about Gabbard’s presence if she says he sent her?

SECOND, Gabbard’s stated mission and Trump’s stated goal don’t match at all.

Gabbard claims she was there because of foreign election interference concerns. In fact, that’s the only possible reason it could be acceptable for her to be there (and, even then, it would be inappropriate, which I’ll explain further below). Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly suggested authorities should revisit the 2020 vote count and has fantasized publicly about “seizing” ballots to prove he actually won.

THEN he let slip a real whopper in yesterday’s NBC interview. After denying he knew why Gabbard was at the FBI raid, he said this:

There should be nothing wrong with the fact that they went in, got ballots from a while ago, and they’re gonna look at ‘em. And now they’re gonna find out the true winner.

Let’s repeat that last part: “And now they’re gonna find out the true winner.”

This might be the biggest smoking gun of all. The President of the United States is suggesting that FBI agents raided the Fulton County election offices to get old ballots from the 2020 election for an unauthorized, unconstitutional recount of the state’s election results — not because of spurious “foreign interference” worries, which is the threadbare justification Trump and his spy chief are apparently trying to use — potentially to break the law. This is dictator-level stuff, folks.

If I was investigating this, I would be asking: What specific foreign intelligence threat was tied to Fulton County in 2026? When was ODNI first informed of such a threat? Did the FBI represent to a judge that foreign interference was involved, or was this about domestic election administration? If it was the latter, was an agent directed to lie to a magistrate judge about the true purpose of the raid? Was intelligence authority used as a pretext to pursue a political vendetta related to the 2020 election?

If the real objective was ballot-related fishing tied to Trump’s grievances, wrapping it in “foreign interference” language could be a massive abuse of national security authorities, and if anyone participating in this action knew that this was a cover for an illegal recount, they could potentially be prosecuted.

THIRD, Gabbard’s reliance on Executive Order 13848 is legally absurd and revealing.

Gabbard cites Executive Order (EO) 13848 as part of her justification for being there. I know that order well. I helped write it, and days ago I explained why it’s not a reason for Gabbard to be at a raid of an election office. The EO does one main thing: it directs the intelligence community to produce a report after an election about whether foreign actors interfered. A report. Paper. Analysis. That’s it.

It does NOT authorize federal seizure of ballots, intelligence officials embedding in criminal searches, and presidential intervention in state election processes. It also requires the report 45 days after an election… not five years later in a raid tied to Trump’s 2020 election loss.

So if Gabbard is invoking this EO is reason for being there, Congress has ANOTHER series of serious questions to ask. Here are just a few that come to mind: Who told her EO 13848 authorized her presence at a search warrant scene? Did the White House provide legal guidance stretching this order beyond recognition? Was the President involved in that analysis? Does Trump also maintain this order gives him authority to seize election materials? Was the President acting in knowing conflict with the actual limits of the order — and previous advice he’s been given about that EO’s actual purpose?

On the latter question, I think the answer is yes. You know why? Because Trump knew that EO 13848 couldn’t be used for such a purpose. We told him what it could be used for. Yet that EO is apparently being twisted into a domestic political tool, also in potential violation of the law.

FOURTH, Gabbard admits putting Trump on the phone with agents at the scene.

Buried in her letter is another bombshell that has already been discussed this week in the press. Gabbard says she facilitated a phone call between the President and FBI personnel during the operation. But what hasn’t been said yet is how badly this revelation blows up Trump’s “I don’t know” defense from yesterday. It also raises serious red flags about White House contact with agents engaged in an active law enforcement operation tied to elections.

Who initiated the call, Trump or Gabbard? Were DOJ leadership and FBI headquarters notified in advance? What exactly did the President say to the agents? Were any promises, expectations, or pressures conveyed? Did agents later submit affidavits or evidence to a court connected to this search? Were they aware that the President was monitoring the operation, or were they under pressure to achieve certain results?

Even the perception of presidential pressure in a case involving ballots Trump has obsessed over for years is deeply corrosive and would be more than sufficient to open a Congressional inquiry.

FIFTH, Gabbard says she didn’t see the warrant or the evidence supporting probable cause. Wait… what?

Gabbard states she never reviewed the search warrant or the evidence supporting probable cause. That’s pretty stunning, as it seems to contradict the rest of her arguments for being there. If she didn’t know the legal basis for the search, then what national security function required the DNI to be physically present? How could she have known she had the legal authority to be there if she didn’t know why she was there?

She couldn’t.

So once again, she is either lying about not knowing the reason for the search OR she is misleading the public and Congress about her authorities to be there. The intelligence committees must demand answers. What specific intelligence task was she performing on-site? Did ODNI request any intelligence from the materials seized? Was this a symbolic presence meant to give the raid “national security” cover? If she didn’t know why she was there, then who the hell told her she had the authority to be there? The President? Then it doesn’t matter why she claims she was there, it matters why the President wanted her there.

Her own admission undercuts her justification.

Finally, all the over-explaining is itself a red flag (or more like a red-flag factory).

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard didn’t announce this visit. She didn’t brief Congress in advance or treat it like a routine intelligence oversight function. She was caught there by a photographer. Only after that did she send a long, legalistic letter stacking together a half-dozen justifications. That looks a lot less like routine intelligence work to me and a lot more like damage control.

So a few more questions to throw into the bucket: When did ODNI first draft legal justifications for her presence — before or after she was photographed? Did career intelligence lawyers object? Was the letter coordinated with the White House? If so, why?

Tulsi Gabbard may have thought she was insulating herself. Instead, she may have just handed investigators a checklist for examining whether Donald Trump inserted himself into a law enforcement action involving election materials… misused national security authorities for political ends… and then lied about it to the American people in order to cover up possible criminal activity.

Congress shouldn’t ignore the Gabbard letter. To me, it’s evidence. They should treat it as probable cause for rigorous oversight and a formal investigation. And they should start asking the above questions — this time, under oath.

Your friend, in defiance,

P.S. Join us tonight (and every weeknight) for DEFIANCE Daily @ 5p ET - Watch LIVE on our DEFIANCE.News page, on our YouTube channel, or on my X account.