On Thursday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called out The Washington Post, accusing one of its Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters for engaging in unethical behavior by harassing intelligence officials to obtain sensitive information.

A few hours later, the Post responded, calling the journalist in question “one of the most careful, fair-minded, and highly regarded reporters covering national security.” The reporter’s behavior, the newspaper said, was just part of her attempts “to report on government officials and hold power to account, without fear or favor and regardless of party.”

An hour later, Gabbard’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence noted what this statement didn’t include: A denial. Which, you know, would have been nice under the circumstances.

The case involved WaPo reporter Ellen Nakashima, who has been with the paper since 1995 and has been on several teams that have won the Pulitzer, including for reporting on the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol incursion and (on no occasion a good sign) propagating the Russian collusion hoax.

It’s been a minute since my Media Ethics 101 class in college, but I’m pretty sure the behavior Gabbard described would have flunked me were I to defend or engage in it.

“Instead of reaching out to my press office, she is calling high level Intelligence Officers from a burner phone, refusing to identify herself, lying about the fact that she works for the Washington Post, and then demanding they share sensitive information,” Gabbard wrote in a social media post.

“Apparently, publishing leaked classified material wasn’t enough for the Washington Post, so now they’ve decided to go after the Intelligence professionals charged to protect it,” she continued, referring to the fact Nakashima was one of several reporters with the Post who authored stories about classified assessments regarding the June 21 strikes on Iran.

“This kind of deranged behavior reflects a media establishment so desperate to sabotage [President Donald Trump’s] successful agenda that they’ve abandoned even a facade of journalistic integrity and ethics,” Gabbard continued. “The Washington Post should be ashamed, and they should put an end to this immediately.”

It has come to my attention that Washington Post reporter @nakashimae appears to be actively harassing ODNI staff. Instead of reaching out to my press office, she is calling high level Intelligence Officers from a burner phone, refusing to identify herself, lying about the fact…

— DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) July 3, 2025

Now, the Post wasn’t going to put an end to this kind of behavior. On the contrary, the newspaper’s executive editor, Matt Murray, decided to spin it as if this were a good thing!

“Reaching out to potential sources rather than relying solely on official government press statements regarding matters of public interest is neither nefarious nor is it harassment,” Murray’s statement on Thursday afternoon read. “It is basic journalism.”

The behavior Gabbard alleged was, in fact, not basic journalism but targeted harassment. Unless, of course, it didn’t happen quite the way she said it did. So, let’s see the rest of the Post’s statement.

“DNI Gabbard’s unfounded personal attack reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of journalists to report on government officials and hold power to account, without fear or favor and regardless of party,” Murray continued. “The Post remains committed to that vital and constitutionally protected work.”

And thaaaaat’s it:

Statement from Executive Editor Matt Murray:

“For three decades, Ellen Nakashima has been one of the most careful, fair-minded, and highly regarded reporters covering national security. Reaching out to potential sources rather than relying solely on official government press… https://t.co/qNi1FBFJgc

— Washington Post Communications (@WashPostComms) July 3, 2025

Alexa Henning, who’s the deputy chief of staff for Gabbard, noted the obvious problem with this in a three-word response:

Not a denial https://t.co/dHd2r87Q9L

— Alexa Henning (@alexahenning) July 3, 2025

“Not a denial,” Henning wrote.

This is the crux of the issue: Even if you don’t have an issue with reporters leaking national intelligence — and I happen to hew to the old-fashioned belief that classified information is classified for a reason, but to each their own — that’s not the disturbing thing about this.

Harassing people from a burner phone and failing to identify what outlet you’re from is media malpractice of the most odious sort, the kind that demands a denial at the very least. The WaPo’s statement, in TL;DR form: We’re doing something like she said, but it’s good for America!

Perhaps, if this gets enough blowback, Murray will issue some kind of pro forma denial. It means nothing now.

The time for that was on Thursday — and the capital’s newspaper of record seemed to acknowledge, when the paper made its statement, that what Gabbard said was materially true.

But WaPo’s gonna WaPo, and there’s no level of cratering in public trust that can convince its journalists to behave otherwise.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.