Gabbard Orders Review Of Intel Alleging Ukraine Aid Diversion to Biden, Dems
A newly declassified intelligence summary is raising questions about whether U.S. taxpayer funds intended for Ukraine were part of a broader scheme to benefit Democratic political operations and then-President Joe Biden, according to officials familiar with the matter. The allegation is now being reviewed after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard requested a deeper examination of the underlying records.
Gabbard asked officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development to conduct a review of contracts, payments, and internal communications tied to the claims, officials said. The effort could lead to a criminal referral to the Federal Bureau of Investigation if supporting evidence is found, Just The News reported.
The declassified document is described as a summary of raw intelligence intercepts collected by U.S. agencies in late 2022. Officials who reviewed the material said the allegation did not appear to receive significant follow-up inside the government at the time.
Gabbard’s team has not identified evidence showing the claims were fully investigated during the Biden administration, according to officials. The intercepts also are not believed to be tied to Russian disinformation efforts, those officials said.
According to the summary, the alleged plan involved using foreign aid channels as a political pipeline. The report claims Ukrainian officials and unspecified U.S. personnel working through USAID in Kyiv discussed funding an infrastructure project that would serve as a cover for redirecting money.
“The Ukrainian Government and unspecified U.S. Government personnel, through USAID in Kyiv, reportedly developed a plan that would provide hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund an infrastructure project for Ukraine that would be used as a cover to send approximately 90% of funds allocated to the DNC to fund Joe Biden’s reelection campaign,” the summary stated.
“They were confident the project would be funded initially, even though at some time in the future the project would be disapproved as unnecessary,” the report added. “At this time, the money would already be allocated and impossible to return or use for a different purpose.”
🚨 HOLY CRAP! DNI Tulsi Gabbard has learned that US intelligence intercepted Ukraine government plans to route HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of American tax dollars to boost Biden’s 2024 campaign against Donald Trump, and the DNC — Just The News
Gabbard is now asking the US Agency for… pic.twitter.com/5aFal3eOwE
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 26, 2026
The summary said the alleged plan relied on subcontracting layers to make tracking funds difficult. Officials said two American subcontractors were referenced in the intercepts, but their names remain redacted in the declassified version.
“The plan included details of how subcontractors would be funded through U.S. companies so that how the funds were spent and allocated would be difficult to track,” the report stated. “Additionally, contracts would be executed that would be difficult to verify.”
The allegations come at a sensitive time for Ukraine as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy continues negotiations with envoys from President Donald Trump aimed at ending the war with Russia.
Ukraine has faced ongoing scrutiny over corruption concerns even as it receives continued Western support.
Over the weekend, President Trump also revealed that Gabbard has a “softer” stance than he does on Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, adding that he still has confidence in his director of national intelligence.
“I would say that I am very strong on the fact that I don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon because if they had a nuclear weapon they’d use it immediately. I think she’s probably a little softer on that issue, but that’s okay. Some people are,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One en route back to Washington.
“Most people aren’t. Most people are saying thank you very much for doing what you did,” he continued.
The president made the comments when asked whether he still has confidence in Gabbard.
“Yeah, sure,” Trump responded to the question. “I mean she’s a little bit different in her thought process than me, but that doesn’t make somebody not available to serve.”
💥 PRESS DEBUT DISASTER!
Katie Zacharia’s Awkward First White House Press Briefing Draws National Attention
Katie Zacharia’s first appearance behind the White House podium quickly became a major talking point after several uncomfortable moments overshadowed her debut as President Donald Trump’s new press secretary.
The October 13 briefing lasted approximately 14 minutes, with Zacharia answering questions from only three news outlets before ending the session. Her short appearance immediately attracted widespread media attention.
Zacharia had recently been selected to replace former press secretary Karoline Leavitt, stepping into a highly visible role responsible for communicating the administration’s positions to journalists and the American public.
From the opening minutes, observers noticed her reliance on prepared notes. She delivered a lengthy account of Trump’s accomplishments, frequently looking down at the script instead of maintaining eye contact with reporters.
Her delivery also attracted criticism, with commentators describing her voice as hesitant and her presentation as unusually stiff. Others questioned whether the administration had given its newest spokesperson enough preparation time.
Much of the briefing focused on praising Trump’s economic agenda, energy policies, rally attendance, and political achievements. The extended list of talking points left relatively little time for substantive exchanges with journalists.
One particularly awkward moment occurred when Zacharia discussed the challenge of balancing her demanding position with family life. She explained that spending evenings away from her four children was unacceptable to her.
She then accidentally referred to her husband as “my president” before immediately correcting herself with “my husband.” Recognizing the slip, she added a brief joke, creating the briefing’s most widely discussed moment.
The verbal mix-up spread rapidly through news coverage and social media, becoming a defining image of her first appearance. Critics treated it as evidence of nervousness, while others viewed it as an ordinary human mistake.
Her response to a question about U.S. intelligence sharing with Ukraine also drew attention. When asked whether Washington had stopped sharing intelligence with Kyiv, Zacharia replied that she would have to get back to the reporter.
The exchange was brief, but it highlighted the difficulty of responding to sensitive foreign policy questions without immediately having the necessary information. Reporters continued seeking answers as the briefing moved forward.
Another significant announcement concerned Kimberly Guilfoyle, the U.S. ambassador to Greece. Zacharia told reporters that the administration had asked Guilfoyle to resign, unexpectedly introducing a personnel development into the short briefing.
The announcement generated additional headlines and demonstrated that, despite the awkward delivery, Zacharia’s first appearance included consequential political news. Her handling of the announcement, however, also attracted scrutiny from commentators.
Questions about her readiness soon emerged among political observers and some administration allies. The Wall Street Journal described the debut as rocky, reporting that her nervous presentation prompted questions about the decision to put her before cameras so quickly.
The brief question-and-answer session was another unusual feature. After taking questions from Breitbart News, Fox News, and the Daily Mail, Zacharia announced that reporters could ask Trump questions directly as he prepared to leave.
Her decision to end the briefing after such limited questioning became another focus of criticism. Regular White House briefings often involve extended exchanges, making the short session particularly noticeable to journalists and political commentators.
Despite the criticism, Trump publicly defended his new press secretary. Asked about her performance, the president said he thought she had done very well, offering a clear show of support following the difficult debut.
The White House also presented the briefing positively, describing Zacharia’s performance as commanding. That assessment contrasted with critical media coverage, illustrating how differently supporters and detractors interpreted the same appearance.
Zacharia’s debut has therefore become an early test of her ability to manage a demanding communications role. Future briefings will offer a clearer indication of whether she can develop greater confidence and handle sustained questioning.
For now, the accidental “my president” remark remains the most memorable moment from her first appearance. Whether the incident becomes a brief viral embarrassment or a lasting political talking point will depend on what follows.
