Washington Post Links Tulsi Gabbard to 173-Page Butler Directive Network
Updated
Updated · The Daily Beast · Jun 21
Washington Post Links Tulsi Gabbard to 173-Page Butler Directive Network
3 articles · Updated · The Daily Beast · Jun 21
Summary
A Washington Post investigation found Tulsi Gabbard’s advisers exchanged emails, documents and talking points with allies of Chris Butler, 78, the leader of the Science of Identity Foundation, over years.
Dozens of examples from 2014 to 2016 showed Gabbard echoing language from alleged SIF directives in interviews, policy memos and legislation, including an Islamic State-related bill introduced a week after one email.
The Post said a 173-page policy compilation and other material pointed to Butler as the likely author, though his associates denied that and Sunil Khemaney claimed he wrote the directives.
Gabbard’s spokesperson called the report anti-Hindu bigotry, but the findings add scrutiny to the former intelligence chief’s political network after her resignation from Trump’s cabinet was announced last week.
How did a sect leader's directives shape the actions of America's top intelligence official?
How did the vetting process for the nation's top spy miss decades of 'cult' influence?
Was the DNI's resignation a strategic retreat or an admission of a compromised position?
Washington Post Investigation: The Butler Directive Network, Chris Butler, and the Controversial Influence on Tulsi Gabbard’s Political Career
Overview
The Washington Post's June 2026 investigation exposes the alleged 'Butler Directive Network,' a secretive operation suspected of influencing political figures like Tulsi Gabbard. Central to the report is the discovery of confidential memos, including a 2015 document that provided Gabbard with specific talking points for a CNN interview. Gabbard later used nearly identical language on air, illustrating how these detailed directives may have shaped her public statements. This example highlights concerns about external influence over political messaging and raises important questions about the independence of public officials.