When Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, went looking for someone to head the National Counterterrorism Center, she landed on Joe Kent, a former Green Beret, past CIA officer, and twice-failed MAGA congressional candidate in Washington state, who, as the Associated Press reported, “stands out for the breadth of his ties to a deep-seated extremist fringe.” During his first campaign in 2022, Kent consulted with white nationalist Nick Fuentes on social-media strategy. He also had a member of the Proud Boys on his campaign staff, and he embraced as a supporter and ally Joey Gibson, the leader of Patriot Prayer, a Christian nationalist group. But his associations with far-right extremists began prior to his attempt to win a congressional seat. In 2020, Kent helped boost the organizing message of a new right-wing paramilitary outfit that called itself the 1st Amendment Praetorian. On September 20, 2020, Robert Patrick Lewis, a former Green Beret and QAnon supporter, posted a long thread on Twitter (now X) that announced the formation of the group. Lewis declared that a band of “military, law enforcement & intel community veterans” had come together to protect the First Amendment rights of conservatives. He presented a harsh, conspiratorial, and paranoid view, claiming, “There are Marxist & leftist politicians aiming to lock down total control over our populace.” He asserted, “Their tyrannical, Marxist subversive groups such as ANTIFA & BLM demand total subservience to and adulation of their specific view of the world.” And he maintained the “corrupted Main Stream Media does their best to tarnish the reputation and destroy the lives of any public or private citizen who dares step up to them or fight back against their narrative.” Lewis called on “military, law enforcement or intelligence community” veterans to join 1AP and fight back. In an apparent sign of support, Kent reposted this thread. Lewis noted that 1AP would be providing security services for right-wing rallies and marches, including those “with a large number of high-profile, conservative VIPs speaking & attending.” For one event, he said he needed veterans to provide “physical security, intelligence/surveillance and to serve as team leaders for small security & intelligence and intelligence cells.” He promised, “we will keep your names confidential and our personnel records & communications will be encrypted.” He added, “This group was formed to protect attendees at President Trump’s campaign rallies.” Soon after forming 1Ap, Lewis presented it not only as a security service for the right but as an intelligence operation. He told Fox News, “Our intelligence shows that no matter who wins the election, they [Antifa] are planning a massive ‘Antifa Tet Offensive,’ bent on destroying the global order they are not beholden to any one party. Their sole purpose is to create havoc, fear, and intimidation.” (No such uprising occurred.) After the election, 1AP claimed it was collecting evidence of fraud. On January 6, as the riot began at the Capitol, Lewis tweeted, “Today is the day the true battles begin.” (He later said he was at the Willard Hotel, not Capitol Hill, that day.) Lewis’ 1AP did provide security at various events featuring far-right extremists. According to the final report of the House January 6 committee, during a December 12, 2020, rally of pro-Trump election deniers in Washington, DC, Stuart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers, a right-wing, anti-government militia, “coordinated” with 1AP “to guard VIPs, including retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn and Patrick Byrne.” (Both Flynn and Byrne were prominent promoters of the crackpot conspiracy theory holding that the 2020 election was stolen form Trump.) Months later, Lewis and 1AP provided security at a QAnon conference in Dallas, where Flynn essentially called for a military coup in the United States. On social media, Kent has often boosted posts from Lewis. At one point each complimented the other for a podcast appearance. When Kent ran for Congress, Lewis expressed his support for him on social media. In a 2022 Telegram post, Lewis said that he knew Kent “personally” and “wish I could personally vote for him.” In January, 1AP posted on Telegram that there were “mumblings” that Kent could be appointed to lead the National Counterterrorism Center and that this “would be a very good thing. I could not support this more strongly.” Mother Jones sent Kent, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Counterterrorism Center a list of questions about Kent’s support for 1AP and his relationship with Lewis. Neither Kent nor the agencies responded. Kent has an established record as an extremist and promoter of conspiracy theories. During his 2022 run, he called for charging Dr. Anthony Fauci with murder to hold him “accountable” for the “scam that is Covid.” He promoted Trump’s Big Lie that the 2020 election was rigged against him. He backed the idea the January 6 riot was orchestrated by the Deep State to discredit Trump and his supporters. He referred to the J6 rioters as “political prisoners.” He pushed the notion that billionaire Bill Gates was seeking to “control the food supply” and “control housing” to force people to “live in the pod eat the bugs.” Like Gabbard, Kent has no experience in leading a large intelligence organization. (After serving in the Army, he was a field operative for the CIA for a short time.) As head of the NCTC, Kent will have the responsibility for monitoring and preventing both foreign and domestic terrorism. But his past as a conspiracy theorist and his association with far-right extremists raise questions about his analytical abilities and his capacity to assess threats of domestic terrorism that arise from the right. His association with 1AP and Lewis is just one more reason to wonder about his judgment.

Just after noon Eastern Time on Monday, the Atlantic published a story that seemed, on its face, too absurd to be true. Entitled “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans,” and written by the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, the story reported that Goldberg had been, seemingly accidentally, added to a group chat on the encrypted messaging app Signal that featured Cabinet officials—and even Vice President JD Vance—discussing plans to bomb Houthi movement targets across Yemen. The Signal group’s members reportedly included a who’s who of top national security officials; among them were National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. On March 15, the US carried out the plan the chat’s members discussed and debated. Which is to say: The details reported in the Atlantic story were, in fact, legit. Brian Hughes, spokesperson for the National Security Council, also confirmed that, telling the Atlantic that the Signal group “appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain.” Hughes added, “The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security.” But upon publication of the story, top Democrats quickly argued otherwise. Senior Democrats on the House Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight committees sent a letter Monday to Waltz, Gabbard, Hegseth, and Rubio, writing that their actions “may have constituted a security breach” and demanding they respond to a series of questions about whether classified information was shared and how often Signal is used for such conversations, among other inquiries. Senate Democrats also slammed the leak as “malpractice,” “amateur behavior,” and “an egregious threat to US national security.” Democrats also used a previously scheduled Tuesday morning Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on “worldwide threats” to question Gabbard and Ratcliffe about the leak. Some Republicans—including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R- La.), Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)—have conceded that the leak constituted a serious mistake. But President Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and several of the officials included in the group message have gone to great lengths to hide their embarrassment and claim the whole thing was, actually, no big deal. Here are all the ways thus far that they have tried to obfuscate and downplay what national security experts are calling a massive—and possibly illegal—leak. Claiming the information shared was not classified White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed in a post on X Tuesday morning that “No ‘war plans’ were discussed” and “No classified material was sent to the thread.” She added that “the White House is looking into how Goldberg’s number was inadvertently added to the thread.” A few hours later, Gabbard and Ratcliffe followed Leavitt’s lead when they testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee and repeatedly claimed the information was not classified. “My communications, to be clear, in a Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information,” Ratcliffe claimed at one point. “There was no classified material that was shared,” Gabbard subsequently agreed. But Democrats on the Committee were not satisfied, charging that the Trump officials should release the full transcript of the chat if the leaking of the material did not constitute a national security threat. (The Atlantic did not publish the whole chat, writing that it was withholding information that could be used by foreign adversaries and was related to specific intelligence operations and personnel.) “If there is no classified material, share it with the committee,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) told Gabbard. “You can’t have it both ways. These are important jobs. This is our national security. [You’re] bobbing and weaving and trying to filibuster your answer.” > Gabbard claims "there was no classified materials that was shared in that > Signal chat." pic.twitter.com/gJP4mX7IlL > > — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 25, 2025 Sen. Angus King (D-Maine) also wasn’t having it. “So the attack sequencing and timing and weapons and targets you don’t consider to have been classified?” he asked Gabbard. To that, the Director of National Intelligence said she deferred to Hegseth and the National Security Council—prompting King to again demand that officials involved in the chat release the full transcript if the material was not, in fact, classified. “You’re the head of the intelligence community,” King also reminded Gabbard. “You’re supposed to know about classifications.” > .@SenAngusKing: "So the attack sequencing and timing and weapons and targets > you don't consider to have been classified?" > > DNI Gabbard: "I defer to the Secretary of Defense and the National Security > Council…" > > King: "You're the head of the intelligence community." > pic.twitter.com/R59vbevaSx > > — CSPAN (@cspan) March 25, 2025 On an episode of the Bulwark podcast that aired Tuesday, Goldberg rejected officials’ claims that the information was not classified. “They are wrong,” he said. Declining to answer questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee At the Tuesday hearing, Gabbard repeatedly refused to even confirm whether she was on the group chat in response to a question posed by Warner. “You are not ‘TG’ on this group chat?” Warner pressed, after Gabbard’s first denial. “I’m not going to get into the specifics,” she replied. > Tulsi Gabbard refuses to answer Warner's questions about the Signal group chat > pic.twitter.com/vMLfszfFMN > > — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 25, 2025 She also declined to respond to a question from Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) about whether she was using her public or private phone to participate in the Signal chat. “I won’t speak to this because it’s under review by the National Security Council,” Gabbard said, adding the information would be shared when the reveiw was complete. “What is under review?” Reed asked. “It’s a very simple question.” Gabbard again stonewalled. > Question: Were you using your private phone or public phone for the signal > discussions? > > Gabbard: I won't speak to this because it's under review > pic.twitter.com/nPMM5NGwOu > > — Acyn (@Acyn) March 25, 2025 Trashing the Atlantic and Jeffery Goldberg When Trump was first asked about the leak by a reporter on Monday, he appeared to be unaware of it. “I don’t know anything about it,” he said, adding later, “You’re telling me about it for the first time.” Nonetheless, he felt confident enough to trash the Atlantic: “I’m not a big fan of the Atlantic. To me it’s a magazine that’s going out of business. I think it’s not much of a magazine.” > President Trump, when asked about the Atlantic story in which The Atlantic’s > editor-in-chief was accidentally included in a Signal group chat with his top > officials discussing Yemen war plans, said he knows nothing about it. > > It’s an example of Trump trying to pretend he’s above… > pic.twitter.com/cqNqImhPQh > > — Yashar Ali (@yashar) March 24, 2025 Musk did the same, posting on X on Monday night: “Best place to hide a dead body is page 2 of The Atlantic magazine, because no one ever goes there.” Hegseth, for his part, characterized Goldberg as a “deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist” when speaking to reporters on Monday—even though the National Security Council had already confirmed the veracity of the chat. > NEW > > Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth just landed in Hawaii and was asked about the > Yemen Signal group chat. > > His response was to attack The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, whom Trump has > long despised. > > He refers to Goldberg as a “deceitful and highly discredited, so-called… > pic.twitter.com/Cw1qrLX7Fh > > — Yashar Ali (@yashar) March 24, 2025 Leavitt also tried to undermine Goldberg, writing in her X post that he is “well-known for his sensationalist spin.” (Goldberg, and the Atlantic, do not appear to have responded to those attacks.) Claiming that, all in all, it wasn’t such a big deal Officials have also tried to simply dismiss the incident as not that big of a problem. After learning the full details of what occurred, Trump told NBC News that the incident was “the only glitch in two months, and it turned out not to be a serious one,” adding that Waltz “has learned a lesson, and he’s a good man.” Musk appeared to try to downplay the significance of the leak, writing in a post on X, “Most government systems are shockingly primitive” in response to a post from author and cartoonist Scott Adams arguing the same point. An especially telling exchange came when, during the Tuesday hearing, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) asked Ratcliffe: “Director Ratcliffe, this was a huge mistake, correct?” To this, Ratcliffe had a clear response: “No.” > OSSOFF: Director Ratcliffe, this was a huge mistake, correct? > > RATLIFFE: No > > OSSOFF: This is an embarrassment pic.twitter.com/Yi5NOHdj3O > > — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 25, 2025

Donald Trump’s appointment announcements are getting weird. The president-elect’s selection of Susie Wiles as his chief of staff, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as his Secretary of State nominee, suggested a pivot toward GOP convention. But Trump’s selection of former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as his Director of National Intelligence—along with his announced plans to nominate Fox News host Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense, and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) for Attorney General, represent a pivot toward the kooky. Trump plans to put Gabbard, a dabbler in conspiracy theories, in a job overseeing 18 spy agencies, with responsiblity for preparing the president’s daily intelligence briefing. Gabbard did not respond to inquiries on Wednesday. Gabbard’s nomination was announced Wednesday by longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone, who read Trump’s press release on the pick aloud on Alex Jones’ conspiracy-mongering InfoWars minutes before the release went public. Gabbard, a former lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, is a former middle-of-the-road Democratic member of Congress who has evolved into a Trump supporter. She moved leftward in 2016—endorsing Sen. Bernie Sanders that year—and ran for the party’s presidential nomination in 2020 on a campaign that blasted the Democratic foreign policy establishment, before endorsing Trump this year. Along the way, Gabbard has demonstrated excessive credulity about claims of autocrats hostile to the United States. In 2017, she drew fire for meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during a secret trip to Syria. Later that year, she said she was skeptical of US intelligence findings that led then–Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to say US officials had “a very high level of confidence” that chemical weapons attacks that killed dozens of people in Syria “were carried out by aircraft” under Assad’s direction. Gabbard’s position aligned with arguments from Russian officials, who provided key backing to Assad and argued that the 2017 attack was staged by agents of the United Kingdom. Gabbard again bolstered Russian propaganda in 2022, when she tweeted a video repeating Kremlin claims that US-funded labs in Ukraine were developing biological weapons. The Russian claims appeared to be largely made-up justifications for Russia invading its neighbor.   Gabbard’s comments drew widespread criticism. “Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) tweeted at the time. “Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.” Gabbard has defended her various statements as examples of her willingness to buck a hawkish Washington foreign policy consensus too eager to start wars. “I am here to help prevent World War III,” she told Fox News on Monday. But in defying what she dubs conventional views, Gabbard demonstrated a high tolerance for conspiracy theories and disinformation: that is, she seems wide-open to bullshit. That’s a particularly problematic penchant for someone tasked with advising the president on US intelligence findings—but it appears to be a quality this particular president desires.