Concerns are rising as Tulsi Gabbard, former Democratic congresswoman and military veteran, is nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to lead U.S. intelligence services. Critics are especially worried about her past comments and associations, which appear to align with Russian perspectives, particularly surrounding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
Back in 2022, during the height of the Ukraine crisis, Gabbard endorsed one of Russia's main justifications for its military aggression against Ukraine. Moscow had claimed the existence of U.S.-funded biolabs within Ukraine, alleging they were used to create bioweapons similar to COVID-19. Gabbard’s support for this narrative raised eyebrows, as it echoed Russian propaganda at a time when international tensions were mounting.
Although Gabbard later stated she was not accusing either the U.S. or Ukraine of any wrongdoing, her remarks about protecting these labs were perceived as leaning too close to the narrative pushed by Moscow. This stance has not only drawn ire from politicians across party lines but has also led to her support from Russian state media. The concern is palpable among Democrats and national security experts who argue her views could undermine U.S. national security interests.
Republicans, too, are expressing fears about her nomination. Former Trump national security adviser John Bolton remarked, "Gabbard, like Gaetz, is like a hand grenade ready to explode." His point—illustratively depicting her potential influence—suggests the serious risks of having someone with her background oversee U.S. intelligence operations.
Gabbard’s history is particularly troubling when considering the strategic alliances at stake. She has criticized U.S. assistance to Ukraine, referring to its government as corrupt and highlighting Russia's security concerns as legitimate. During the beginning of the invasion, she tweeted, "This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns." This line of thinking is alarming for many who worry about the long-term consequences on global stability.
Notably, Gabbard has had secret meetings with leaders like Syria’s Bashar Assad, who is himself closely aligned with Russia and Iran. There’s significant apprehension about what her views might mean for the delicate balance of American intelligence sharing and cooperation with its key allies.
Senators are asking poignant questions about her nomination. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) stated, "Do you really want her to have all of the secrets of the United States and our defense intelligence agencies when she has so clearly been in Putin’s pocket?" Her comments underline the general uncertainty looming over Gabbard’s potential appointment.
The wider implications of Gabbard’s nomination extend to America's relationships with allies, particularly the Five Eyes intelligence coalition, which includes partners like the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. With allies closely watching the nomination process, there are fears this could result in disrupted trust and intelligence-sharing protocols, potentially allowing shared modern threats to flourish.
This situation becomes even more complicated as European allies begin to discuss moving toward security strategies less dependent on the United States. Such sentiments have emerged particularly following Biden's responses during debates, highlighting the fragility of international alliances.
With Gabbard’s nomination heading toward Senate confirmation, the stakes are getting higher. If confirmed, she would inherit sensitive information and tools integral to U.S. national security. This reality has only intensified the pushback from various lawmakers who fear the consequences of placing someone with pro-Russian sympathy at the helm of U.S. intelligence.
