Confirmed: Whistleblower Complaint Against Tulsi Gabbard Was Total Trash

The narrative presented in The Wall Street Journal was notably disorderly: a classified whistleblower complaint was lodged against the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. It allegedly caused concern within Washington regarding the procedures for reviewing the complaint and communicating with Congress. The attorney representing the whistleblower is unable to access the evidence due to its highly sensitive nature. Furthermore, the inspector general’s office examined the complaint and concluded that it lacked credibility, thus delivering a decisive rebuttal to the narrative propagated by certain media outlets.

This narrative serves as a nostalgic reference to the Russian collusion hoax: releasing a story that the media heralds as a significant revelation, only for it to diminish rapidly under examination within twenty seconds. You think it’s a damning story until you read or watch the liberal media narrative take a katana to the face. Now, it’s confirmed that the complaint was garbage (via JustTheNews):

The assessment by the current Inspector General, who was appointed after the complaint, confirms to Congress his predecessor’s findings and also provides new details about the allegations against Gabbard, the letter, which was reviewed by Just the News, shows. That letter was transmitted to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees.
According to the Intelligence Community watchdog Christopher Fox, the whistleblower submitted a complaint on May 25, 2025, alleging that Gabbard restricted the distribution of a “highly sensitive intelligence report for political reasons” and that the responsible general counsel’s office failed to report the “potential crime” to the Justice Department.
His predecessor, acting Inspector General Tamara Johnson, determined on June 4, 2025, that “if true” the allegation amounted to a matter of “urgent concern” but was not able to assess the credibility of the allegations.
Under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, “urgent concerns” are matters that “an IC employee reasonably believes to evidence violations of law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.”
However, in a follow-up determination after reviewing new evidence, she assessed that the claims “did not appear credible,” the current Inspector General wrote. “On June 9, 2025, after receiving newly-obtained evidence, Acting IC IG Johnson issued a supplemental determination memorandum, finding that the first allegation did not appear credible while remaining unable to assess the apparent credibility of the second allegation,” Inspector General Christopher Fox wrote to the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence panels.
Further, Fox told the congressional leaders that in a fresh review of the whistleblower’s allegations, he would disagree with his predecessor’s determination that the matter met the definition of “urgent concern” under statute.