WASHINGTON — The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has cautioned an attorney representing a whistleblower that discussing the client’s allegations with Congress could lead to unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The warning, issued on Monday, underscores the sensitive nature of the complaint filed against DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

General Counsel Jack Dever informed Andrew Bakaj that he lacks the legal authority to present the complaint’s details to members of the congressional intelligence committees. In a letter, Dever emphasized that the classified nature of the complaint poses significant risks of legal violations if shared improperly.

“While you may seek other avenues to engage Congress, this is not one of them,” Dever wrote, highlighting concerns over potential mishandling of sensitive information. The complaint itself has undergone scrutiny, having been declared non-credible on two separate occasions by intelligence officials.

Dever also asserted that the protections usually granted to whistleblowers do not extend to Bakaj, stating that only the complainant is authorized to notify Congress about the complaint’s existence, not its specifics. The assertion follows persistent allegations from Bakaj concerning Gabbard’s handling of the situation.

The nature of the allegations remains largely unclear, although they reportedly involve surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency regarding conversations between foreign nationals discussing an individual linked to former President Trump.

In a recent statement, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton expressed his position on the complaint, agreeing with intelligence oversight bodies that it lacks credibility. He characterized it as part of a broader effort to undermine the government’s policies by those opposed to the administration.

Contrastingly, Democratic Vice Chair Mark Warner has suggested that the complaint was viewed as credible by Tamara Johnson, the acting intelligence community inspector general who reviewed the matter. However, Dever clarified that while two complaints were submitted, one was deemed not credible and the other couldn’t be adequately assessed.

Warner stated that there was confusion surrounding Gabbard’s legal responsibilities to inform Congress. He argued that ignorance of such legal obligations is not an acceptable defense, particularly for someone in such a high-ranking position.

Responding to interpretations of the complaint, Dever wrote that the methods used in standard procedures to inform Congress were insufficient for the classified allegations contained within. As a response, he explained that a more secure method of hand-delivering the complaint to select congressional leaders was implemented.

In light of these developments, no immediate comment has been provided by Bakaj. As both sides continue to navigate this complex legal landscape, the implications for transparency and accountability within the intelligence community remain a focal point of discussion.