In one of the most controversial statements to emerge in recent political discourse, former Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has labeled former CIA Director John Brennan and Congressman Adam Schiff as “domestic enemies” of the United States. The comment, which Gabbard made during a national television interview, has reverberated across the political landscape, drawing both sharp criticism and fervent support. Her words have sparked a broader conversation about the limits of power, the definition of patriotism, and the role of government officials in shaping the nation’s future.
Gabbard, known for her independent political stance and her departure from the Democratic Party, expressed deep concern about what she sees as a coordinated effort by powerful individuals within the government to undermine the constitutional rights of American citizens. She accused Brennan and Schiff of using their influential positions to advance a narrative that she claims is eroding civil liberties and targeting political dissent. According to Gabbard, their actions are not merely political missteps but a threat to the very foundation of American democracy.
Her argument rests on specific grievances. She cited Adam Schiff’s role as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, where he was one of the most vocal proponents of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, a storyline that many critics now argue was overblown and politically motivated. Gabbard accused Schiff of using his position to promote misinformation and of misleading the American public, thereby damaging trust in democratic institutions.
As for John Brennan, the former CIA chief, Gabbard took issue with his public statements advocating for the expansion of intelligence community efforts to monitor domestic extremism. She described Brennan’s rhetoric as dangerous, warning that it could justify sweeping surveillance powers and government overreach under the guise of national security. In Gabbard’s view, labeling broad swaths of Americans as potential threats undermines the First Amendment and opens the door to authoritarian practices.
Her remarks have been applauded by libertarian and conservative voices who share her concerns about civil liberties and the growing power of the national security state. They argue that Gabbard is one of the few political figures willing to confront the unchecked influence of intelligence agencies and congressional leaders who operate with little transparency or accountability. For these supporters, her use of the term “domestic enemies” is not an exaggeration but a necessary wake-up call to the American public.
However, her comments have also drawn fierce backlash. Critics argue that calling fellow Americans — especially public servants with long careers in national security and governance — “domestic enemies” is irresponsible and inflammatory. They warn that such rhetoric contributes to the polarization of American politics and fuels conspiracy theories. Some accuse Gabbard of aligning herself with far-right movements and of abandoning her previous reputation as a unifying political voice.
Others point out the irony in Gabbard’s accusations. They argue that while she claims to defend free speech and individual liberty, her use of language that demonizes others could itself be seen as damaging to civil discourse. By framing political disagreements as threats to the nation, critics say, Gabbard risks deepening divisions and making compromise even more elusive.
Still, her supporters remain adamant. They argue that what Gabbard said is not only accurate but essential to preserving the country’s democratic integrity. They believe that there are real and growing threats from within — not from ordinary Americans, but from institutions and officials who have lost sight of their constitutional limits. For them, the courage to call out abuse of power, regardless of political consequences, is precisely what is needed in today’s climate.
The question of whether Brennan and Schiff are truly “domestic enemies” depends, in part, on one’s political perspective. But Gabbard’s statement has clearly touched a nerve. It has forced Americans to reconsider who holds power, how that power is wielded, and whether dissenting voices — even those from within the political establishment — deserve more scrutiny or more support.
In an era where trust in institutions is steadily declining, Tulsi Gabbard’s bold claim serves as both a challenge and a reflection of the broader anxieties gripping the nation. Whether one agrees with her or not, she has once again positioned herself at the center of a national reckoning over liberty, accountability, and the meaning of loyalty to the United States.
