The FBI has launched an investigation into possible leaks of classified information by Democrats or their staffs on the Senate Intelligence Committee, a probe triggered in part by a criminal referral from the National Security Agency that sat unnoticed inside the Justice Department for months, Just the News reported.
The referral centers on an NSA overseas intercept of two Hezbollah figures whose contents surfaced in press reports, including one in The New York Times, during Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's confirmation process. Those reports quoted the intercept as claiming Gabbard, during a 2017 trip to Syria, had met with the "big guy," language the Times suggested some took to mean she had met with a top Hezbollah leader.
Gabbard adamantly denied the claim. And the NSA itself concluded that while the leak accurately contained information from one of its intercepts, Gabbard had not in fact met with Hezbollah leaders. The spy agency then identified potential leakers among Senate Intelligence Committee Democratic staff who had access to the intercept before the Times published its report.
The NSA filed its criminal referral last summer. But sources told Just the News the referral languished inside the Justice Department for months, with top leaders unaware of the concerns it raised. FBI Director Kash Patel was alerted to the referral's existence only a few weeks ago.
Since then, FBI counterintelligence and criminal agents have ramped up the probe. They have expanded it beyond the original intercept leak to encompass other potential leaks and media contacts tied to the committee's Democrats, the report stated.
The delay raises an uncomfortable question: how does a criminal referral from the nation's signals-intelligence agency, involving the unauthorized disclosure of a classified foreign intercept, collect dust at the Justice Department without senior officials knowing about it? No explanation has been offered for the gap. Which DOJ leaders missed it, and why, remains unanswered.
The development adds a new chapter to ongoing scrutiny of how classified material has been handled, and mishandled, across Washington's intelligence apparatus.
This is not the first time the Senate Intelligence Committee has been at the center of a major leak investigation. In 2018, the committee's longtime security director, James Wolfe, was charged with making false statements to the FBI during a separate leak probe.
Wolfe eventually pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with reporters and his disclosure of nonpublic information. As Breitbart reported at the time, the indictment described Wolfe allegedly passing classified material to multiple journalists, including information widely believed to concern former Trump aide Carter Page. Authorities said Wolfe denied those contacts when the FBI first questioned him, then admitted lying when confronted with evidence of his relationship with reporter Ali Watkins.
Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions framed the effort in blunt terms: "We have 27 investigations open today. We intend to get to the bottom of these leaks."
The Wolfe case exposed a troubling reality: the very committee entrusted with overseeing America's intelligence community had a senior employee funneling secrets to the press. That a similar investigation now targets the committee's Democratic members or their staff suggests the institutional problem was never fully resolved.
The broader pattern of politically charged leaks has drawn sustained attention from FBI investigations touching high-profile political figures across multiple administrations.
The new probe fits within a wider Trump administration effort to prosecute unauthorized disclosures of classified information. Over the last 15 months, that crackdown, led by the FBI, has produced major indictments by the Justice Department. Among those charged: former National Security Advisor John Bolton.
The administration's posture marks a sharp break from years in which leak investigations moved slowly, produced few consequences, and often seemed to stall when the trail led toward politically connected figures. The willingness to pursue cases against senior officials signals that the old norms of quiet accommodation may be over.
Still, the current investigation raises as many questions as it answers. No specific Democrats or staff members have been publicly identified as targets. The exact scope of the expanded probe, including which additional leaks and media contacts are under review, has not been disclosed. And the full contents of the NSA's criminal referral remain unknown to the public.
Disputes over FBI conduct and DOJ accountability have become a recurring flashpoint in Washington, with both parties trading accusations about whether law enforcement applies its standards evenly.
The underlying facts of the NSA referral deserve close attention. The intercept in question captured two Hezbollah figures discussing Gabbard's 2017 Syria visit. Their use of the phrase "big guy" was reported by the Times during Gabbard's confirmation battle for the DNI post, a fight that was already politically charged.
The implication, as framed in the press coverage, was that Gabbard had met with a top Hezbollah terrorist leader. Gabbard denied it. The NSA, after reviewing the matter, agreed: the intercept's contents had been leaked, but the meeting described in press reports did not happen.
That sequence is worth sitting with. A classified intelligence intercept was disclosed to the press. The disclosure was used to damage a Cabinet nominee during her confirmation. The intelligence agency that owned the intercept concluded the damaging interpretation was wrong. And the agency then identified Democratic staff on the oversight committee as potential sources of the leak.
Whether or not charges ultimately follow, the pattern is clear: classified material was weaponized for political purposes, and the people who did it had the security clearances to know exactly what they were doing.
The episode echoes other moments in which damaging material involving political figures surfaced under contested circumstances, raising questions about who benefits and who pays the price.
The investigation is still in its early stages, and significant gaps remain. No one has been charged. The identities of the staffers or members under scrutiny have not been made public. The precise date of the NSA referral is described only as "last summer." The date Patel learned of the referral is described only as "a few weeks ago."
It is also unclear what other leaks and media contacts the expanded probe now covers. The article references an expansion beyond the original intercept matter, but details are thin. Whether the investigation will produce indictments, quiet referrals, or nothing at all remains to be seen.
FBI Director Patel's role going forward will be closely watched. His tenure at the FBI has already drawn intense attention from both supporters and critics, and a high-profile leak prosecution targeting Senate Democrats would raise the political temperature further.
The instinct in Washington will be to frame this investigation as partisan overreach, a Republican administration targeting Democratic lawmakers. That framing conveniently ignores the facts. The referral came from the NSA, not the White House. The agency concluded its own classified intercept had been compromised. It identified the people who had access. And the FBI followed the trail.
Leaking classified intelligence to the press is a federal crime. It is a crime when Republicans do it. It is a crime when Democrats do it. It is a crime when career staff do it to settle scores or sink a nomination they oppose. The Senate Intelligence Committee exists to oversee the intelligence community on behalf of the American people, not to serve as a pipeline for politically useful secrets.
If the investigation confirms what the NSA's referral suggests, the American public deserves to know who compromised a classified intercept, why they did it, and what consequences follow. The referral already sat in a drawer for months. The country cannot afford to let the accountability do the same.
When the people charged with guarding the nation's secrets become the ones giving them away, the problem isn't a leak. It's a breach of trust that no classification stamp can fix.