The Wall Street Journal attempted to paint Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard as reckless in a hit piece this week, but the so-called “undercover” CIA officer at the center of the story is hardly the secretive figure the outlet portrayed. In fact, the operative in question — Julia Gurganus — is a long-time Washington insider who played a role in pushing the discredited Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

The article, written by WSJ national security reporter Brett Forrest, claimed Gabbard “blindsided” the CIA when she revoked Gurganus’ security clearance, along with dozens of others. Forrest alleged, citing anonymous sources, that Gabbard failed to consult meaningfully with the agency.

“Gabbard didn’t know the CIA officer had been working undercover, according to a person familiar with the fallout from the list’s release,” Forrest reported in the Wednesday piece, titled “Tulsi Gabbard Blindsided CIA Over Revoking Clearance of Undercover Officer.”

However, multiple sources told The Federalist that Forrest’s framing was misleading. A senior intelligence official confirmed that staff-level coordination occurred between the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, and other agencies before the revocation letters went out. Another insider stated flatly that “zero concerns” were raised at the time.

While Forrest suggested CIA Director John Ratcliffe was unhappy with the decision, a CIA spokesperson contradicted that narrative.

“Director Ratcliffe and the President’s entire elite national security team are committed to eradicating the politicization of intelligence and are focused on executing President Trump’s national security priorities, and keeping the American people safe,” spokeswoman Liz Lyons told the WSJ.

Despite Forrest’s attempt to shield her identity, Gurganus is far from unknown. She has openly flaunted her CIA credentials for years, according to The Federalist. Gurganus has worked as a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and appeared at numerous conferences, including AFCEA’s 2025 Spring Intelligence Symposium, where she was publicly identified as a CIA executive.

Gurganus also held a high-profile role on the National Intelligence Council from 2014 to 2017, working as an “expert on Russia and Eurasia.” Her long public record raises serious questions about the WSJ’s claim that she was an endangered undercover officer.

Adding to the political undertones, Forrest cited Larry Pfeiffer, a former Obama official and one of the 51 intelligence operatives who falsely branded Hunter Biden’s laptop as “Russian disinformation” in 2020. Pfeiffer criticized Gabbard’s decision, claiming: “‘A smart [director of national intelligence] would have consulted with CIA’ before identifying the undercover officer.”

Notably, Gurganus herself was reportedly “deeply involved” in the Intelligence Community Assessment that fueled the debunked Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

The bottom line: The Wall Street Journal’s attempt to frame Gabbard’s move as reckless collapses under scrutiny. What the article portrays as a “blunder” looks far more like accountability — stripping clearance from a partisan intelligence insider who once helped advance one of the most damaging hoaxes in modern American history.