The Guardian Retracts ‘Whistleblower’ Report Attacking Tulsi Gabbard After Their Dubious Source Is Revealed
The Guardian’s recent piece built around a so-called whistleblower accusing Tulsi Gabbard was ugly in both tone and construction, and it followed a script that has become depressingly familiar. An explosive claim was pushed into the bloodstream of the media ecosystem with minimal scrutiny, maximum insinuation, and an expectation that the accusation itself would do the work. Gabbard denied the allegations outright, and within days, the entire story began to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
The @guardian are now dissembling because in their attempted hit on @TulsiGabbard, they relied on the word of the CIA operative "lawyer" Andrew Bakaj, who worked for Hillary and Schumer on the Hill and represented the Vindmans in the fake Ukraine impeachment.
Bakaj has now… https://t.co/TGJ1PMkbiH pic.twitter.com/8sEadnKCAZ
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) February 9, 2026
What makes this episode stand out is not just that the claim failed, but how quickly and thoroughly it unraveled once attention turned to who was actually behind it. As more details emerged about the individuals involved in assembling and promoting the complaint, a series of very familiar names surfaced. To anyone who paid attention during the Trump years, the sense of déjà vu was unmistakable.
Interesting that this hit on @TulsiGabbard is coming from the British Guardian.
The actual article is bs, of course.
But it shows you who the leaker is, which appears to be Senator Mark Warner's cutout(s)
Christopher Steele/British intel run the Guardian so that's probably… pic.twitter.com/D8x7UpamKo
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) February 7, 2026
Central to the unraveling was Bakaj, who ultimately walked back the story he had helped push. That reversal forced The Guardian into issuing what it described as a “correction,” though in substance it amounted to a retraction. The core allegation that justified the headline and the media frenzy simply could not be sustained. Once the correction was published, the original narrative was effectively dead, even if many outlets pretended otherwise.
The Guardian got taken by a "whistleblower," published a false story, and had to issue a major correction, and CNN's media reporter Brian Stelter hasn't mentioned it.
This is supposed to be his beat.
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) February 9, 2026
The mechanics of how the story was leaked also raised eyebrows. Routing sensitive allegations through a British outlet rather than an American one is not a random choice. Publishing domestically would invite immediate legal and national security scrutiny. Publishing abroad, particularly through a major UK paper, allows the story to be laundered back into the U.S. media, where American outlets can safely cite the foreign reporting without assuming responsibility for the original claims. That tactic is well known and has been discussed extensively in the context of past intelligence-related media operations.
By the way, for those keeping score, this isn't a "clarification," as journalist Cate Brown says.
It's a *correction* that completely nukes the original story and should be noted as such.
But "clarification" makes it seem less like they wrote a false hit piece. https://t.co/oaQ5DGLNzP pic.twitter.com/5KuMw2xub5
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) February 9, 2026
Speculation has naturally followed about the involvement of anti-Trump elements within the CIA and NSA, allied political figures, and foreign partners. The appearance of names connected to Senator Mark Warner has only reinforced those suspicions. This constellation of actors mirrors, almost too neatly, the same network that drove earlier efforts to damage Trump during the Russiagate years.