Tulsi Gabbard Reportedly Labels Adam Schiff and John Brennan ‘Domestic Enemies’: A Controversy Ignites

In a headline-grabbing moment that has set tongues wagging and keyboards clacking, reports are swirling as of March 31, 2025, that Tulsi Gabbard, rumored to be the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), has classified Representative Adam Schiff and former CIA Director John Brennan as “domestic enemies” of the United States. The claim, amplified across social media platforms like X with cheers of “As she should!” from supporters, has thrust Gabbard back into the spotlight. But is this bold accusation rooted in fact, or is it the latest flare-up in America’s polarized political theater? Let’s peel back the layers, examine the context, and explore the stakes.

The Claim’s Origins

The story erupted from posts on X and fringe websites, asserting that Gabbard, in an official capacity, branded Schiff and Brennan as threats to the nation. As DNI—a role she’s speculated to hold under a second Trump administration—she would oversee America’s sprawling intelligence network, making such a designation a bombshell with far-reaching implications. Schiff, a California Democrat and former House Intelligence Committee chair, and Brennan, Obama’s CIA head from 2013 to 2017, are no strangers to controversy, often vilified by conservatives for their roles in Trump-era investigations. Gabbard’s alleged move, if true, would be a dramatic salvo in an ongoing war of words.

This isn’t Gabbard’s first tango with these two. In January 2021, as a former congresswoman, she posted a video decrying the Capitol riot but pivoted to a broader warning: “The John Brennans, Adam Schiffs, and the oligarchs in Big Tech… are also domestic enemies—and much more powerful, and therefore dangerous, than the mob that stormed the Capitol.” She accused them of pushing surveillance and censorship, threatening constitutional freedoms. The 2025 claim seems to echo that sentiment, but with a twist: it’s now framed as an official act, not just rhetoric.

Fact or Fiction?

Here’s the catch—there’s no hard evidence to back this up. As of today, no press release from the DNI’s office, no White House statement, and no mainstream outlet confirms Gabbard has made such a classification. The DNI can’t unilaterally label individuals “domestic enemies”—a term steeped in political heat but lacking legal teeth under U.S. law. Treason, the closest constitutional parallel, demands specific acts and a judicial process, not an intelligence chief’s decree. Posts on X cite her 2021 remarks or vague “breaking news” tidbits, but without an official document, it’s shaky ground.

Could this be a misunderstanding? Perhaps Gabbard, if DNI, revisited her old critiques in a speech, and it snowballed online into an “official” narrative. Or maybe it’s a deliberate hype job by partisans eager to see their foes targeted. The timing—days after posts on March 29, 2025, from accounts like @arva61138 and @cethomas19—suggests a rumor gone viral. Until a primary source emerges, it’s wise to treat this as unverified, though its spread speaks volumes about public appetite for such drama.

Why Schiff and Brennan?

If Gabbard did say this, the choice of targets isn’t random. Schiff’s relentless pursuit of Trump during the Russia probe and first impeachment made him a bogeyman for the right—his name synonymous with “deep state” conspiracies. Brennan, a blunt Trump critic post-CIA, fueled the fire with calls for heightened security after January 6, which some saw as overreach. Gabbard’s 2021 video framed them as architects of a “police state,” a charge that resonates with her base—folks wary of government power and tech giants alike.

Supporters might argue she’s right to call them out. Schiff’s investigations, while uncovering Russian meddling, leaned on disputed claims like the Steele dossier, feeding accusations of political bias. Brennan’s tenure saw the CIA’s drone program expand, and his later rhetoric alarmed civil libertarians. Gabbard, a veteran with a maverick streak, has long positioned herself as a defender of liberty against such figures—her 2022 exit from the Democrats only cemented that image.

The Counterargument

Critics, though, would cry foul. Schiff and Brennan operated within their roles—Schiff as a lawmaker probing executive overreach, Brennan as an intelligence leader navigating global threats. No evidence ties them to treason or illegal acts warranting “domestic enemy” status. If Gabbard, as DNI, pushed this, it could look like a power grab—weaponizing her office to settle scores rather than protect the nation. Free speech, a cause she’s championed, might ironically take a hit if dissenters face such labels without proof.

The logistics don’t align either. The DNI oversees foreign intelligence, not domestic policing—classifying U.S. citizens as enemies would likely fall to the FBI or courts, with clear criteria. Gabbard’s 2021 words were a citizen’s opinion; an official 2025 move would need legal grounding that’s conspicuously absent.

The Bigger Picture

True or not, this saga reflects a nation on edge. Immigration crackdowns (like Leonel Moreno’s deportation) and health policy spats (RFK Jr.’s soda ban idea) already stoke division, but Gabbard’s alleged strike at Schiff and Brennan taps a deeper vein: distrust in institutions. A 2024 Gallup poll pegged confidence in government at 26%, near historic lows, while 47% of Americans, per Pew, question the intelligence community’s motives. Her narrative thrives in that skepticism, whether she’s DNI or not.

If she is DNI and acted, it could signal a Trump-era purge of perceived adversaries, testing constitutional limits. If it’s just hype, it’s a case study in how fast unverified claims spread in 2025’s digital echo chambers—X posts from @gpatterson828 and others show sentiment outpacing facts. Either way, it’s a mirror to America’s rift: one side sees heroes unmasking villains, the other sees a chilling attack on discourse.

Where Do You Stand?

Did Tulsi Gabbard really classify Schiff and Brennan as “domestic enemies,” and should she have? If it happened, it’s a game-changer with ripple effects for governance and trust. If not, it’s a reminder to check sources before cheering. The debate’s raw—security versus liberty, accountability versus vengeance—and the truth’s still murky.

What’s your take? Is this justice long overdue or a dangerous overstep? Share below—because in today’s climate, every voice shapes the story.