CIA Allegedly Monitored Tulsi Gabbard’s Oversight Team — What the Record Says

A new viral claim says the CIA was tracking DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s team and allegedly monitoring every keystroke on their government computers and devices. The story is real enough to investigate, but the exact wording matters.

The strongest public record so far is not a declassified technical log showing keystroke capture. It is written testimony from CIA officer James Erdman, published with a congressional letter from Sen. Rand Paul’s Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and subsequent reporting from the Daily Caller News Foundation, New York Post and others.

What was alleged

Erdman worked with Gabbard’s Director’s Initiatives Group, or DIG, a task force created to review intelligence-community conduct and push declassification work. In his written testimony, quoted by the Daily Caller News Foundation, Erdman said the CIA “obstructed lawful oversight” and retaliated against DIG members through what he believed were illegal investigations.

The Daily Caller report says the CIA listened in on interviews and watched the computer activity of the DIG task force. The New York Post reported that Erdman accused the CIA of “illegally monitored the computer and phone usage of DIG personnel, their investigations, and contact with whistleblowers.”

That is a serious allegation. It suggests surveillance of an oversight team operating under the Director of National Intelligence, the official who sits above the CIA in the U.S. intelligence hierarchy.

The “every keystroke” issue

The phrase “every keystroke” is circulating online, including in posts attributing the claim to journalist Catherine Herridge. Public summaries also say Herridge reported that Gabbard’s team was being tracked and that communications were collected because the team was uncovering “uncomfortable facts.”

But there is an important line between “computer activity was monitored” and “every keystroke was captured.” The first appears in published reporting around Erdman’s testimony. The second is more specific and, based on the sources reviewed here, has not yet been backed by a public technical document.

Why this matters

If true, the allegation is not a normal bureaucratic turf fight. It would mean an intelligence agency monitored officials assigned to review its own conduct, including contacts with whistleblowers. That cuts directly into congressional oversight, internal accountability and whistleblower protection.

The context is already politically charged. Gabbard’s DIG was reportedly reviewing sensitive topics, including JFK assassination files, MKUltra material, anomalous health incidents and COVID-origin intelligence. Separately, Democratic lawmakers had earlier demanded an investigation into whether Gabbard’s team was seeking broad access to intelligence-community emails, chat logs and other internal communications for political purposes.

So there are two competing concerns. One side alleges the CIA spied on an oversight team. The other worries the oversight team itself may have sought sweeping access to intelligence employees’ communications. Both claims point to the same underlying problem: enormous surveillance power with limited public visibility.

What to watch next

The next useful evidence would be specific: inspector general findings, technical audit logs, legal authorizations, records of who requested access to DIG devices, and sworn testimony from the officials who allegedly authorized or discovered the monitoring.

Until then, the careful version is this: a CIA officer has publicly alleged illegal monitoring of Gabbard’s DIG team, including computer and phone activity. The broader “every keystroke” version remains an escalated claim that needs harder proof.

NoDechev rating: serious allegation, not fully proven. The surveillance claim is documented through testimony and reporting; the precise keystroke-monitoring claim remains unverified in the public record reviewed here.