Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, unleashed a firestorm on X, accusing Washington Post reporter Ellen Nakashima of harassing her staff with deceptive tactics. Her claims, dripping with frustration, paint a picture of a media outlet allegedly undermining the President’s agenda. But is this a genuine grievance or a calculated jab at a free press?
Fox News reported that Gabbard alleges Nakashima used a burner phone to contact senior intelligence officers, refusing to identify herself and falsely denying her Washington Post affiliation while demanding sensitive information.
This explosive accusation followed Gabbard’s Thursday post on X, where she didn’t hold back. She even hinted Nakashima might be the same reporter who once “stalked” her family in Hawaii.
The Washington Post fired back swiftly, with executive editor Matt Murray defending Nakashima’s methods as standard journalistic practice. Murray called Gabbard’s accusations an “unfounded personal attack” that misunderstands the role of reporters in holding power accountable.
His response also posted on X, framed Nakashima as a seasoned, fair-minded journalist with three decades of national security coverage.
Gabbard didn’t stop at Nakashima’s alleged burner-phone antics. She claimed the Washington Post, desperate to derail the President’s agenda, has abandoned journalistic integrity.
“Publishing leaked classified material wasn’t enough,” Gabbard posted, suggesting the outlet now targets intelligence professionals protecting national secrets.
The Post’s Murray, however, doubled down, praising Nakashima’s meticulous reporting. He argued that reaching out to sources beyond official press statements is “basic journalism,” not harassment. This defense, while polished, sidesteps Gabbard’s specific claims about deception, leaving room for skepticism.
Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff, Alexa Henning, jumped into the fray, noting on X that Murray’s statement was “not a denial.” Her terse comment implies the Post’s response dodged accountability. It’s a subtle but sharp jab, keeping the pressure on the media giant.
This isn’t the first time Gabbard’s team has clashed with the Washington Post. In November, her former chief of staff, Kainoa Penaroza, accused Post reporter Jon Swaine of “stalking” Gabbard’s ex-employees and showing up uninvited at his home. The pattern suggests a deep distrust between Gabbard’s circle and the outlet.
Gabbard’s accusations carry weight, given her role overseeing the nation’s intelligence community. If true, Nakashima’s alleged tactics—lying about her identity and using burner phones—raise questions about journalistic ethics. Yet, without evidence, these claims risk being dismissed as political theater.
The Washington Post, for its part, stands firm behind Nakashima. Murray’s glowing endorsement of her career aims to deflect Gabbard’s attacks but doesn’t directly refute the burner-phone allegations. This omission fuels speculation about what the Post isn’t saying.
Fox News Digital reached out to Nakashima for comment, but no response has surfaced. Her silence, intentional or not, leaves the story lopsided, with Gabbard’s narrative dominating the conversation. It’s a missed opportunity for the Post to clarify its side.
Gabbard’s broader critique—that the Post is sabotaging the President’s agenda—resonates with conservatives wary of a media elite.
Her rhetoric, while fiery, taps into a real frustration: the perception that outlets like the Post prioritize narratives over truth. But calling out “deranged behavior” risks alienating those who see journalism as a public good.
Murray’s defense of Nakashima hinges on the idea that journalists must probe beyond government press releases. It’s a fair point—reporters aren’t stenographers. Yet, if Nakashima crossed ethical lines, as Gabbard alleges, the Post’s blanket dismissal feels tone-deaf.
The spat exposes a deeper rift between government officials and the press. Gabbard, a polarizing figure, frames herself as a defender of intelligence professionals against media overreach. Her supporters likely see this as a bold stand against a biased press, while critics view it as an attack on free inquiry.
Henning’s “not a denial” quip keeps the Post on the defensive, suggesting Gabbard’s team smells blood. But without concrete proof of Nakashima’s alleged deception, Gabbard’s accusations could backfire, painting her as overly combative. It’s a high-stakes gamble in the court of public opinion.