In a recent interview with Fox News, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard revealed that more than 100 federal employees working within U.S. intelligence agencies have been fired for participating in what conservative media outlets have described as “sexually explicit” group chats on the National Security Agency’s (NSA) Intelink platform.

The announcement was made during a February 25 interview with Fox News host Jesse Watters, in which Gabbard characterized the behavior of the intelligence community employees as an “egregious violation of trust.” She stated that their actions had led to the revocation of their security clearances.

EXCLUSIVE: @GrossmanHannah and I have obtained logs from the NSA’s secret transgender sex chatroom, in which NSA, CIA, and DIA employees discuss genital castration, artificial vaginas, piss fetishes, sex polycules, and gangbangs—all on government time.

This is insane. 🧵

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) February 24, 2025

Egregious Misuse of NSA Platform

According to Gabbard, the individuals involved used the NSA’s Intelink messaging system, a platform designed for professional communication, to engage in what she called “really, really horrific behavior.” The Intelink platform, used by U.S. intelligence personnel to share critical information, was meant to facilitate national security efforts, not personal, inappropriate exchanges. Gabbard’s decision to terminate these employees stems from the misuse of this platform, which she condemned as a breach of trust within the U.S. intelligence community.

The former Democratic congresswoman, who has become a vocal figure among conservative circles, also addressed the leak of this information, which first came to light through conservative strategist Christopher Rufo. Gabbard credited Rufo, a fellow of the Manhattan Institute, for exposing the issue through his reporting.

Rufo’s Reporting and Claims of Sexual Discussions

On February 24, the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal published a report by Christopher Rufo and Hannah Grossman, who claimed that NSA employees were engaging in sexually explicit conversations on Intelink. According to the authors, the chats spanned topics such as “sex, kink, polyamory, and castration” and took place in two specific Intelink channels, LBTQA and IC_Pride_TWG. Rufo and Grossman alleged that these channels had been “hijacked” by “gender activists.”

Rufo’s story cited a former NSA employee and a current NSA worker, who provided chat logs allegedly dating back two years. The story claimed that these logs displayed inappropriate and lurid conversations, including what was described as “sex chats.” However, much of the reporting was based on selective excerpts, which critics argue misrepresented the nature of the discussions.

Reactions to the Allegations

The report sparked immediate backlash from some observers, who questioned the accuracy of the claims and the framing of the content. The chat logs shared by Rufo appeared to contain discussions among transgender employees about personal topics such as pronouns, body image, and gender-affirming procedures. There were references to medical experiences, such as hair removal and laser treatments, which were taken out of context in some media reports, according to critics.

One transcript did include a comment by a federal employee discussing their experiences with gender-affirmation surgery. This comment was framed as part of a broader conversation about surgical procedures and personal experiences, with no explicit or graphic details. However, Rufo and Grossman referred to this exchange as “castration,” a term critics argue misrepresents the context and intent of the conversation.

In their City Journal story, Rufo and Grossman also cited an unnamed NSA source who expressed disgust over a thread allegedly discussing “gangbangs.” Yet, the transcripts provided did not contain any explicit reference to such activities. Instead, they included a conversation about polyamory, which some might consider unconventional but not inherently inappropriate or sexually explicit.

The Debate Over Context

The controversy surrounding the reporting highlights concerns about the potential for misrepresentation in sensitive issues. The term “kink,” for instance, was used in some headlines to describe the content of the chats, though the logs provided no clear evidence of such discussions. Likewise, Rufo’s claims of discussions surrounding “p*ss fetishes” appeared to be based on misinterpretations, as the references to urination were not made in any sexual or fetishistic context.

Some critics have suggested that the reporting by Rufo and Grossman selectively presented information to push a specific narrative about the behavior of transgender employees within the intelligence community. These critics argue that while some of the discussions may have been private and personal, they were not inherently inappropriate given the context of gender identity and affirmation.

NSA Response to the Allegations

Ahead of Gabbard’s appearance on Fox News, the NSA issued a statement acknowledging the posts circulating online that reportedly showed inappropriate discussions among intelligence personnel. The NSA clarified that it is aware of the issue and is actively investigating the matter.

“IC collaboration platforms are intended to drive mission outcomes,” the NSA wrote in a statement posted on X (formerly Twitter). “Potential misuse of these platforms by a small group of individuals does not represent the community. Investigations to address this misuse of government systems are ongoing.”

The NSA’s response suggests that, while the reported behavior is being taken seriously, it also reflects a commitment to ensuring that any misuse of government platforms is addressed appropriately.

Gabbard’s decision to fire over 100 intelligence employees underscores the seriousness with which U.S. intelligence agencies view any violations of trust, especially those involving sensitive communication platforms. The controversy also raises broader questions about privacy, professionalism, and the appropriate boundaries for personal expression within government institutions.

As investigations continue into the alleged misconduct, the debate over how to balance personal expression and professional responsibility in sensitive government positions remains ongoing.