Tulsi Gabbard, the former congresswoman from Hawaii, stands at the center of controversy as President Donald Trump has nominated her as the director of national intelligence. This nomination has opened the floodgates to scrutiny surrounding Gabbard’s past, particularly her notorious meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad, which has not only drawn sharp criticism from various lawmakers but has also raised significant questions about her qualifications for the position.
Her meeting with Assad, which took place eight years ago, provoked intense backlash from political spheres across the board. At the time, Gabbard defended the encounter as part of her effort to seek peace amid the chaotic Syrian civil war. Critics, including some from her own party, blasted her for engaging with the leader of a regime accused of heinous war crimes and human rights violations. A Republican congressman went so far as to label it “a disgrace.”
Senator Lindsey Graham's upcoming influence on Gabbard's confirmation hangs heavily as he publicly stated he needs clarity on the reasons for her trip to Syria. His pointed question, “Why did you go to Syria? What did you do with regard to Assad?” reflects the deep skepticism felt by some senators about Gabbard’s judgement and her foreign policy views overall.
Gabbard’s shift from being viewed as a rising star of the Democratic party to becoming one of Trump’s most outspoken defenders raises eyebrows. From progressive darling to populist icon, her worldviews have evolved dramatically. Gabbard’s election to Congress in 2013 coincided with the escalation of the Syrian crisis, during which she adopted increasingly unorthodox positions about the use of military force and the nature of U.S. involvement overseas.
Her views on domestic intelligence gathering have sparked their own set of concerns. Gabbard was previously outspoken against Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permits surveillance of foreign persons without obtaining warrants. During her time in office, she voted against the renewal of this provision, criticizing it as infringing on the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens. This opposition stands at odds with her newfound support for the intelligence community's reliance on the same legal framework which she once argued against.
Gabbard’s potential confirmation has many questioning whether her change of heart on FISA is genuine. Senator Susan Collins has already expressed doubts, indicating she found Gabbard’s responses to be “hedged” and lacking clarity. "There are several questions I want to follow up on..." said Collins, alluding to the uncertainty surrounding Gabbard's positions and plans for intelligence oversight.
Beyond the specifics of her past actions, Gabbard’s unique blend of skepticism toward U.S. military intervention and her controversial stances on national security issues calls her qualifications as Director of National Intelligence directly to question. Jamil N. Jaffer of the National Security Institute characterized her nomination as “highly unusual,” noting the distinct juxtaposition between the otherwise conventional appointees Trump has nominated and Gabbard’s less traditional views.
Trump, for his part, has dismissed criticism of Gabbard’s Assad meeting, comparing her diplomatic outreach to his own meetings with various controversial leaders, stating, “I met with Putin. I met with President Xi of China. I met with Kim Jong-un twice. Does this mean I can’t be president?” This assertion reveals Trump's attitude toward foreign policy, underscoring his belief in engagement even with adversaries.
But with the Senate intelligence committee split between Democrats and Republicans, Gabbard’s path to confirmation is far from assured. The intelligence committee comprises nine Republican members and eight Democrats, meaning even one Republican 'no' vote could endanger her confirmation. The confirmation hearing, set for January 30, 2025, will be pivotal. Senators like Graham are eager to assess Gabbard's responses to inquiries about her past and her strategic vision for national security.
Analysts have suggested the stakes for Gabbard extend beyond her political career; they may impact the ineffable relationship between the U.S. intelligence community and international allies. The concerns surrounding her past statements and alignment with figures such as Assad or aspects of Russian state narratives have resulted in voices within the intelligence discussion expressing apprehensions about her effectiveness and potential to inspire trust among U.S. allies. Commentary from intelligence veterans raises alarms about Gabbard’s capacity to furnish sound judgment when briefing national leaders on threats.
The upcoming Senate committee hearing could well become one of the most consequential moments for executive branch nominations. The results will be closely monitored, and the decisions taken by senators could shape not only Gabbard’s future but also the direction of American intelligence and national security policy for years to come.