Psychologist flags 'deeply troubling' pattern behind ex-Trump official's departure

Former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard seemed to depart from the Trump administration without a peep, but one psychologist argued on Thursday that she represented a "deeply troubling" pattern of officials who may not be working in the best interest of the American people.

The Washington Post recently published a bombshell investigation revealing that Gabbard may be under the influence of a cult-like guru named Chris Butler. Butler, who founded the Science of Identity Foundation, an organization that former members have described as a cult, was in frequent contact with Gabbard throughout her career, according to the report. There were also instances in which Gabbard repeated the exact talking points Butler had sent her in other communications.

Mary Trump, a psychologist and author, argued in a new Substack essay that the report raised questions about who was influencing the former intelligence professional. While the allegations against Gabbard are disturbing in their own right, Trump argued that they also fit into a larger pattern that her uncle, President Donald Trump, capitalized on to ascend to power.

"The central issue is not whether Tulsi Gabbard belongs to a particular religion," she wrote. "Nor is it whether Chris Butler’s organization should accurately be described as a religious movement or as a cult. Reasonable people may disagree about those characterizations. The issue is whether the head of a private religious organization exercised influence over somebody who was making decisions on behalf of the American people."

"The allegations surrounding Tulsi Gabbard fit into that larger pattern," Trump continued. "They raise questions not simply about one individual, but about the integrity of the institutions Americans rely upon to safeguard democracy. Public officials are entitled to their religious beliefs. They are entitled to spiritual guidance. They are entitled to worship as they choose. What they are not entitled to do is obscure the extent to which unelected private figures may be shaping decisions that affect the entire country."