Tulsi Gabbard, President Donald Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence (DNI), is set to face tough scrutiny from lawmakers over her controversial foreign policy positions and past remarks on Russia. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s hearing on her confirmation will be a critical test of her qualifications and whether she can alleviate bipartisan concerns about her lack of intelligence experience.
A Nomination Under Fire
Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, is a National Guard lieutenant colonel who has deployed twice to the Middle East and ran for president in 2020. However, she lacks formal intelligence experience and has never led a government agency. Donald Trump Jr. warned Republican senators against voting against Gabbard, tweeting, “Any Republican Senator who votes against @TulsiGabbard deserves a primary. No more Deep State b******!!!!”
The hearing follows delays from Senate Democrats, citing incomplete background checks and ethics disclosures. Gabbard’s past statements have drawn criticism from both parties. She has echoed Russian rhetoric justifying the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine and has accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of corruption. Russian state-controlled media have frequently praised her viewpoints. Another sticking point is her 2017 visit with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. After the trip, she faced backlash for appearing to legitimize Assad, who has been accused of using chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war. Gabbard also expressed skepticism about Assad’s responsibility for these attacks, further fueling criticism.
Intelligence and Surveillance Stance
As a congresswoman, Gabbard proposed repealing Section 702, a surveillance program used to monitor suspected terrorists abroad. However, she has since reversed her stance, citing new privacy safeguards. While some lawmakers remain wary, Republican support for Gabbard has grown significantly. Sen. Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, defended Gabbard, stating that while her past views are up for debate, questioning her loyalty to the U.S. is inappropriate. “She’s passed five different background checks. I reviewed the latest one. It’s clean as a whistle,” Cotton said. “It’s fair to ask about policy differences, but I hope no one questions her patriotism or integrity.”
Gabbard’s association with the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF), a religious group linked to Hare Krishna, has been another point of contention. The group, led by Chris Butler, is highly secretive, with former members alleging cult-like practices and intolerance toward LGBTQ individuals, women, and Muslims. Critics argue Butler played a role in shaping Gabbard’s political career, raising concerns about potential undue influence. Although Gabbard has distanced herself from SIF, her long-standing ties to the group remain a key issue in the confirmation process.
National Security Risks and Political Ramifications
Former National Security Advisor John Bolton has called Gabbard’s nomination “the worst cabinet-level appointment in history”, citing her controversial foreign policy views and ties to SIF. With skepticism growing across both parties, the Senate confirmation process will likely focus on whether Gabbard’s past statements, foreign policy views, and religious affiliations pose a risk to national security. As scrutiny intensifies, Gabbard’s nomination remains uncertain. Whether she can overcome these hurdles and secure Senate confirmation will depend on how convincingly she addresses concerns about her background, foreign policy stance, and religious ties.
Leave a Reply