The only ones mentioned in this article that I can see that might have been questioned by Trump or any lackey are the "top deputies to the CIA director, John Ratcliffe" aka "at least one of whom was a top adviser to Ratcliffe and had worked on some of the USs most sensitive military operations". Which may have been
In the days leading up to President Donald Trumps Aug. 15 Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, one of the CIAs senior-most Russia experts worked grueling hours, helping Trump and his team prepare for high-stakes diplomacy over Ukraine and making sure they were adequately briefed, according to a former agency colleague.
Four days later, the CIA officer whom The Washington Post is not naming for her protection was at work at the spy agencys Langley headquarters when she was abruptly ordered to report to the security office. She was informed that her clearance to look at classified material was being stripped. In a span of minutes, her 29-year career in public service was essentially over.
The officer had been expecting an imminent move to Europe to take up a prestigious assignment approved by CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
Instead, she became the latest casualty of a widening cull by Trump and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, fueled at times by far-right activist Laura Loomer, targeting national security professionals whom they deem to have engaged in politicization or weaponization of intelligence to advance personal, partisan, or non-objective agendas, according to Gabbards Aug. 19 memo announcing the revocation at Trumps direction of security clearances.
https://archive.ph/vkeGl (Washington Post archive link)
The mention of Loomer is notable. She seems to have the power to get anyone fired, no matter if they seem pro-Trump, if she decides anything in their past doesn't pass her purity test. So if Gabbard can say "Loomer told me about these people", I'm sure she'll get credit for doing Loomer's bidding without bothering the White House.