Would the TSA have us believe that Tulsi Gabbard is a suspected domestic terrorist? Why? Well, it is as you might suspect:

According to (Executive Director of the Air Marshal National Council (AMNC) Sonya) LaBosco, Gabbard’s enrollment in Quiet Skies is likely politically motivated. Air Marshals were first assigned to Gabbard on Jul. 23, a day after she criticized Kamala Harris, Biden, and the National Security State in an interview with Laura Ingraham. FAMs were mobilized on Jul. 24 and assigned to their first flight with her on Jul. 25. Gabbard posted the interview on Twitter, as shared below.

@EMPOWR_us has confirmed from whistleblowers that @TulsiGabbard was under Quiet Skies surveillance on not just one, or two, or even three flights... She has had Air Marshals there to monitor her on EIGHT FLIGHTS since her July 23 interview with @IngrahamAngle.

Furthermore, TSA is mobilizing a retaliatory investigation into who made these protected whistleblower disclosures. I wrote to @DHSOIG this morning asking him to ensure these whistleblowers are protected.

• TSA deems the surveillance of Gabbard "Sensitive Security Information" (SSI) and has initiated an investigation into the "leak" of said information.


• Protected whistleblower disclosures are not leaks, and the SSI designation does not trump the Whistleblower Protection Act.


• This includes disclosures to media outlets - "The Whistleblower Protection Act protects from adverse personnel actions TSA employees who disclose information they reasonably believe constitutes a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety—regardless of who they make their disclosure to, whether that be to your office, to Congress, to a professional association such as the Air Marshal National Council, or directly to the press."

Over four years the OIG examined, the found Quiet Skies confirmed precisely zero passengers as aviation security threats. I can think of far better uses for the hundreds of thousands of dollars DHS puts into this. (Like, say, ensuring a major party's political nominee is protected from attempted assassination the day after an Iranian asset is arrested for plotting a murder-for-hire?)