Morning Brief: Another Hegseth Aide Leaves Pentagon, Gabbard Threatens Criminal Referrals Against Obama Staffers

· Guy D. McCardle

Tulsi Gabbard sharpens the blade while Barack Obama watches the storm—2025’s intelligence war is personal, and it’s far from over. Image Credit: Times Now

Justin Fulcher, one of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s closest advisors, has walked away from the Pentagon just six months into the job. Fulcher, who came aboard in late April, described his time at the Department of Defense as “incredibly inspiring” and said his resignation was voluntary. That may be true, but the departure adds more fuel to the fire burning beneath Hegseth’s office.

Fulcher’s exit is the latest in a growing line of high-level staff shakeups plaguing Hegseth’s tenure. In just half a year, at least six aides have either jumped ship or been thrown overboard. That includes Dan Caldwell, Colin Carroll, Darin Selnick, and someone known simply as Kasper—each of whom either resigned or got the axe earlier in the year. The exact reasons behind all these departures remain murky, but when your top staff starts peeling off like paint on an old Buick, you’ve got to stand back and wonder what’s going on.

The optics aren’t great. In a department where consistency and trust are supposed to be bedrock, this revolving door of aides suggests a leadership team under stress—or worse, one that’s cracking under internal pressure. Whether it’s ideological clashes, management style issues, or a toxic work environment, no one’s saying outright. But the speculation is growing louder: is Hegseth’s inner circle imploding?

 

Tulsi Gabbard Targets Obama-Era Intel Chiefs with Criminal Referrals over 2016 Election Fallout

Tulsi Gabbard, the acting Director of National Intelligence, is turning up the heat on some of the biggest names from the Obama administration. She’s threatening to send criminal referrals to the Justice Department targeting James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey—the intelligence triumvirate behind the Trump–Russia investigation. According to Gabbard, newly declassified documents prove these officials cooked the books, manipulating intelligence to push the narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win. She’s calling it a “treasonous conspiracy” and a “years-long coup” against the sitting president at the time. That’ll draw at least a little attention away from the Epstein files for now.

Gabbard isn’t playing around. She claims these documents reveal that top intel brass under Obama weaponized their offices, not to protect the country, but to sabotage Trump. And now, she says, they should face prosecution for it. Still, it’s worth noting that no one—then or now—has produced evidence that Russia changed actual votes. The issue was always influence campaigns and online propaganda, not rigging voting machines. Even Obama-era officials admitted that, while agreeing interference took place.

Her moves are part of a larger push by Trump allies to dismantle what they see as the myth of Russian collusion. Prior investigations, including a deep-dive by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, backed the assessment that Russia wanted Trump to win. But they didn’t find evidence of intentional politicization or altered outcomes. That’s the line Gabbard’s now crossing—accusing the architects of the investigation of outright criminal behavior.

Not surprisingly, the response has split down partisan lines like a snapped rifle stock. Republicans are applauding Gabbard for finally going after what they call the “Russia hoax.” Democrats, on the other hand, are blasting her for undermining confidence in the intelligence community and dragging the country back into the political trench warfare of 2016. As for the DOJ, they’re staying quiet—for now.

Whether this leads to actual indictments or just more political fireworks remains to be seen. But one thing’s clear: Gabbard’s shot across the bow isn’t only about the past—it’s a warning that the battles over intelligence, elections, and accountability are far from over.

 

Zelensky Pushes for New Peace Talks as Russian Attacks Intensify

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is once again extending an olive branch—this time calling on the Kremlin to return to the negotiating table next week. With missiles raining down and drones battering Ukrainian cities, Kyiv is proposing a fresh round of peace talks aimed squarely at securing a ceasefire. Rustem Umerov, the newly minted Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, officially delivered the invitation, pressing Moscow to stop dragging its feet on key issues like prisoner swaps, returning abducted Ukrainian children, and ending the bloodshed.

Zelensky made it clear—he’s ready for a sit-down with Putin himself. No intermediaries. No smoke and mirrors. He says only a direct, face-to-face meeting with Russia’s president stands a chance of forging what he calls a “lasting peace.” But anyone who’s been watching this war unfold knows that’s a tall order. The last two rounds of talks in Istanbul went nowhere fast—some prisoner exchanges, sure, and agreements to recover the dead, but no progress on halting the war.

The Kremlin, for its part, says it’s open to talks—but not without strings attached. Russia still insists that Ukraine hand over territory and cut ties with Western military support. Zelensky has rejected those demands outright. Meanwhile, Russian forces keep pounding civilian infrastructure like it’s open season, and Ukraine keeps defending what’s left with everything it’s got. This war is beginning to feel increasingly like the old Bill Murray movie, “Groundhog Day.” 

All of this comes with added pressure from Washington. President Trump, never one to shy away from the spotlight, is demanding a deal within 50 days—or else. More sanctions are on the table, but Moscow’s calling that bluff “posturing.” Truth is, there’s a lot of noise, but not much movement.

So here we are. Another round of proposed talks, another week of chaos, and the same brutal calculus: war costs lives, and peace demands compromise. Whether either side is ready to pay the price for the latter remains to be seen.