Investigation says Gabbard closely aligned with SIF

A lengthy investigation published Sunday by The Washington Post describes “unmistakable parallels” between former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and a breakaway Hare Krishna group known as the Science of Identity Foundation, led by Chris Butle

Tulsi Gabbard’s name is now tied to a question that should sit at the center of any national security job: who, exactly, is shaping what the director of national intelligence decides?

A lengthy investigation published Sunday by The Washington Post describes what it calls “unmistakable parallels” between the directives sent by the Science of Identity Foundation—a breakaway Hare Krishna group—and Gabbard’s political decisions. The reporting follows Gabbard’s recent role overseeing the nation’s intelligence-gathering efforts and argues the implications go beyond politics. reaching directly into national security and the vetting standards expected of a senior Trump administration post.

The investigation. written by Jon Swaine. examined more than 25. 000 pages of emails. memos. and other messages shared with Gabbard by senior leaders of the group. “seemingly on behalf of” its eccentric leader. Chris Butler. The documents were provided to Swaine by a former member of SIF after a falling-out.

In the most consequential parts of the story. Swaine found parallels between directives sent by the group and Gabbard’s choices in public life. The investigation traces connections to specific lines Gabbard used during appearances on national media. as well as legislation she introduced in the House.

Swaine’s reporting also frames the issue as ongoing rather than purely historical, suggesting Gabbard appears to have been—and still could be—under the influence of the group.

The allegation triggered an immediate backlash from a public relations professional hired by SIF to respond to the story. In a statement, the PR professional described the reporting as an attack on Gabbard’s Hindu faith. “Hinduphobia, anti-Hindu religious bigotry, that’s all this is,” the statement said. “When a Hindu public figure has a spiritual teacher or shares views with a Hindu religious figure. that alone is somehow evidence of sinister control.”.

The investigation also points to earlier coverage of the group’s teachings and culture. citing a 2017 deep dive into Gabbard’s belief system by The New Yorker. That piece described a system in which Butler demanded absolute fealty. with followers sometimes sprinkling his nail clippings in their food to demonstrate devotion.

The group’s political shadow has been drawing attention for years, and interest reportedly surged around the time Gabbard ran for president in 2020.

Earlier reporting by the Honolulu Civil Beat highlighted connections inside Gabbard’s immediate circle. It noted that her parents, Carol and Mike Gabbard, held prominent roles in SIF, and that her husband, Abraham Williams, has deep roots in the organization as well.

After Trump nominated Gabbard to oversee national intelligence, Larry Pfeiffer—head of the Michael V. Hayden Center for Intelligence. Policy. and International Security at George Mason University—told the Honolulu Civil Beat that the role demands neutrality. “Your expectation is that a director of national intelligence is going to be this impartial broker of intelligence information to national leadership. ” he said. “And if there’s any question that that individual is under some undue influence by anybody. a religious figure. a corporate figure. a foreign figure. that raises questions about their ability to be impartial.”.

For readers watching this story unfold. the tension is hard to miss: the report’s core claim is not simply that Gabbard had relationships with a religious community. but that directives from a specific organization appear to echo in her decisions—down to phrasing on national media and legislation introduced in the House—at the same time she held a job built on impartial judgment.

The dispute now lands in the open. The Washington Post investigation lays out the documentary trail it says shows “unmistakable parallels” between SIF’s guidance and Gabbard’s political actions. while SIF’s response treats the reporting as a religious smear. arguing that sharing views with a Hindu religious figure cannot be treated as evidence of sinister control. How the White House. intelligence officials. and the administration’s vetting machinery respond to those claims will shape how the country reads the boundaries between personal belief. political loyalty. and national security responsibility.

Tulsi Gabbard Director of National Intelligence Science of Identity Foundation Chris Butler national security vetting Trump administration Hare Krishna Hinduphobia Michael V. Hayden Center Larry Pfeiffer Honolulu Civil Beat Washington Post Abraham Williams Carol Gabbard Mike Gabbard