Tulsi Gabbard's nomination as director of national intelligence is encountering severe resistance as bipartisan concerns emerged during her confirmation hearing on Thursday. President Donald Trump’s controversial appointment for the top intelligence post faced scrutiny due to unsettling responses concerning Edward Snowden and her past remarks on international relations, particularly with Russia and Syria.
During the hearing, Gabbard, who is vying to manage 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, struggled to assuage skepticism from both Republican and Democratic senators. "I’m worried by what I hear from some of my Republican colleagues," said Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, expressing doubts over Gabbard’s potential leadership. Democratic Senator Mark Kelly also echoed these concerns, stating, "Some of them are still really, really uncomfortable with her running 18 intelligence agencies."
Gabbard, former congresswoman from Hawaii and combat veteran, attempted to frame her candidacy as one for necessary change, criticizing the intelligence community for its politicization and failures. She insisted, "The bottom line is this must end. President Trump's reelection is a clear mandate from the American people...to break this cyclic of failure and the weaponization and politicization of the intelligence community."
Yet, many senators pointedly interrogated her for her previous support of Snowden, who leaked classified information about U.S. surveillance practices before seeking asylum in Russia. The refusal to unequivocally condemn Snowden drew sharp rebuke from Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colorado), who pressed her with, "Yes or no, is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America?" Gabbard's evasiveness on this direct question amplified concerns about her judgment, culminating in bipartisan frustration.
Beyond the Snowden controversy, Gabbard faced criticism for her past interactions with Bashar al-Assad, the former Syrian president. Following her 2017 visit, she controversially defended Assad amid allegations of chemical weapon use against his people. Senator Mark Warner, the committee's Democratic vice chairman, admonished her stance, questioning, "How can you blame NATO for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine, yet not condemn Assad for his regime's atrocities?" Gabbard defended her meeting with Assad, asserting, "I asked him tough questions about his own regime's actions," trying to shift the focus onto human rights during her inquiries.
Her track record includes legislation introduced to dismiss charges against Snowden, raising alarm among senators who view Snowden as a traitor prone to endangering national security. "The fact is, he also, even as he broke the law, released information...that led to serious reforms," Gabbard contended at the hearing, attempting to justify her previous support.
Another point of contention arose over Gabbard's shifting positions on U.S. surveillance practices. Previously opposed to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Gabbard has since changed her view, now acknowledging its necessity for national security, leading to questions about her reliability. Senators highlighted this inconsistency during questioning, with Gabbard stating, "I am focused on the future and how we can prevent something like this from happening again" when pressed about her prior stance against surveillance programs.
Despite Gabbard’s military background and political experience, her lack of formal intelligence training raises additional challenges for her confirmation. Critics argue her unconventional views might not equip her adequately to handle America’s prioritization of intelligence amid rising geopolitical tensions. Gabbard’s confirmation hinges on her ability to win over skeptical Republicans; she can only afford to lose three votes from the GOP side to secure her position.
Senator Tom Cotton, the Intelligence Committee chairman, has openly supported Gabbard yet knows the reality of her situation. He stated, "Maybe Washington could use a little more unconventional thinking." While he sees merit in Gabbard’s perspective, it remains uncertain whether this will translate to sufficient support from the Senate committee.
Looking forward, the committee must quickly decide on Gabbard’s nomination, as time is of the essence amid external pressures. Many of Trump’s past appointees have navigated their confirmations without major hurdles, yet Gabbard’s path appears laden with obstacles stemming from intensified scrutiny over her remarks, her past affiliations, and the overarching political climate.
Gabbard has vowed to approach the role if confirmed, with dedication to ensuring U.S. security and integrity of intelligence operations, stating, "If confirmed, no country, group, or individual will get a pass." Her resilience was evident during the heated exchanges, asserting her belief in the need for significant reforms within the intelligence establishment.
While Gabbard’s nomination reflects Trump's unconventional political strategies, whether her elevation to the top intelligence position will bolster or hinder national security remains hotly debated. The final vote on her confirmation, anticipated soon, could reshape how the intelligence community responds to both domestic and global challenges under the Trump administration.