A storm is brewing in Washington following a bold and controversial move that has rocked both political aisles. A viral image circulating online has reignited intense national debate by asking: “Do you support DNI Tulsi Gabbard revoking security clearance for Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and others?”

This hypothetical yet provocative question has exploded across social media, with thousands weighing in, fueling discussions about political accountability, national security, and the limits of power. But could such a move really happen? And what does it reveal about the growing distrust within the American political landscape?

The Viral Image That Sparked the Conversation

The image shows Vice President Kamala Harris and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two of the most polarizing figures in modern American politics, locked in a symbolic visual duel. Both are poised and powerful, but the real fire comes from the caption beneath them, suggesting a sweeping revocation of security clearances by a would-be Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.

Though Gabbard is not currently DNI, the very idea of her holding such a position and targeting high-profile politicians from both parties has struck a nerve—and struck hard.

Who Is Tulsi Gabbard?

Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii and Iraq War veteran, has often charted an unconventional path in U.S. politics. She rose to national attention during the 2020 Democratic primary, where she clashed with party elites and mainstream narratives, eventually leaving the Democratic Party in 2022 to declare herself an independent.

Known for her strong anti-establishment stance and her vocal criticism of U.S. foreign policy and intelligence overreach, Gabbard has earned respect from some conservatives and suspicion from traditional Democrats.

Her name being associated with the hypothetical revocation of security clearances only adds to the image’s viral appeal—and political firepower.

The Security Clearance Controversy

Security clearances grant current and former officials access to sensitive classified information. Typically, officials retain clearance after leaving office, particularly if they are expected to consult on national matters. However, clearances can be revoked under suspicion of misconduct, abuse of access, or when no longer necessary.

The debate over revoking clearances isn’t new. In 2018, President Donald Trump revoked the clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan, citing erratic behavior and security concerns. That decision was met with fierce backlash, with critics calling it political revenge and a dangerous precedent.

Now, the image suggests taking that concept even further—targeting multiple figures including:

• Kamala Harris – the sitting Vice President

• Hillary Clinton – former Secretary of State and 2016 presidential nominee

• Liz Cheney – former Republican representative and vocal Trump critic

• Adam Kinzinger – ex-GOP congressman and member of the January 6 Committee

Supporters of this hypothetical scenario argue that these figures have misused their influence or mishandled sensitive matters. Detractors claim it’s a dangerous fantasy rooted in political vengeance, not national interest.

What Are the Allegations?

Though no formal process has begun to revoke clearances for any of the listed individuals, critics on the political right have long accused figures like Clinton and Harris of putting politics above national security.

Hillary Clinton famously faced a lengthy investigation over her use of a private email server while Secretary of State. While the FBI ultimately declined to press charges, the issue remains a rallying cry for her critics.

Kamala Harris, as Vice President, has faced scrutiny over the administration’s handling of border security, foreign relations, and classified documents—but there is currently no public evidence that she has mishandled sensitive information in a way that would merit clearance revocation.

Meanwhile, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, both Republicans, broke party lines to serve on the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot, earning praise from Democrats and ire from Trump loyalists. Some believe their actions and statements have exposed national security information or promoted partisan narratives.

Could a DNI Actually Do This?

Legally speaking, the Director of National Intelligence oversees the coordination of all U.S. intelligence agencies but does not have unilateral authority to revoke clearances for elected officials, particularly sitting members of the executive branch or Congress. Revocation typically involves review boards, security protocols, and sometimes even presidential directives.

The scenario posed in the meme is more symbolic than realistic. However, it underscores a deeper anxiety many Americans feel: that the intelligence community and national security apparatus are either being politicized or exploited for partisan goals.

Public Reaction: Divided but Passionate

Social media responses to the image have ranged from enthusiastic support to fierce condemnation.

Supporters say it’s time for accountability and argue that revoking clearances from political elites would demonstrate that no one is above the law. They point to past controversies as proof that these individuals can’t be trusted with sensitive intelligence.

Critics, however, call the proposal authoritarian, dangerous, and a sign of how far political discourse has fallen. They argue that stripping opponents of access to information based on political disagreement mirrors tactics used by regimes in authoritarian states—not in a functioning democracy.

What This Says About American Politics Today

The image might be fiction, but the emotion it evokes is real. Americans are increasingly distrustful of their leaders and institutions. Many feel alienated, disillusioned, and eager for change—even if that change is radical.

That’s why images like this resonate so powerfully. They play on deep-seated frustrations and frame political conflict in the starkest possible terms: us versus them, patriots versus traitors, security versus sabotage.

But these narratives are risky. When politics becomes a zero-sum game, compromise dies. And without compromise, democracy weakens.

Final Thoughts

Tulsi Gabbard is not DNI. Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton have not lost their security clearances. But the power of this image lies in its “what if” scenario—a projection of a future where political retribution becomes institutionalized.

Whether you see this as a rallying cry for justice or a chilling vision of partisanship run wild, the image forces a vital question: How far are we willing to go in the name of accountability?

As the 2026 elections approach and political rhetoric intensifies, Americans must decide not just which side they’re on—but what kind of nation they want to be.