Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump’s surprise nominee for the critical role of directing national intelligence, is certain to face thorough scrutiny over her controversial past remarks on Syria, Russia, surveillance, and the former president himself. Gabbard, previously a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, has a history of statements that have raised concern across intelligence and national security sectors within the US. Her leniency towards Russia and critique of an essential surveillance program is likely to generate sharp questions in her confirmation hearing.
Gabbard’s unpredictable journey to potential intelligence leadership began as a lieutenant colonel in the National Guard, serving two tours in the Middle East. However, her eyebrow-raising sympathy towards Russia and criticism of vital surveillance efforts have led to background fear among US national security and intelligence officials. These fears were only fueled when she partook in a controversial trip to Syria in 2017.
Her visit to meet with then-President Bashar Assad of Syria drew condemnation from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who claimed she was conferring legitimacy to an alleged war criminal, a significant associate of Russia and Iran. Gabbard staunchly defended her journey, arguing that such meetings with adversaries could pave the way for discussion and eventually peace.
Interestingly, this meeting continued to be a central point of discussion when Assad fled Syria following an intense civil war in December, years after Gabbard’s visit. Gabbard justified her stance, stating that caring for Syrian people and their suffering meant being prepared to meet anyone if it would increase the chances for peace.
Raising further alarms, she expressed doubt about the well-established conclusion by US authorities and independent analysts that Assad’s regime used banned chemical weapons against its citizens. Gabbard’s assertion, “Assad is not the enemy of the United States because Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States”, offered a significant departure from conventional understanding.
After the ousting of Assad, Gabbard surprisingly aligned with Trump’s assessment, suggesting that Assad fell because Russia withdrew its support during its conflict in Ukraine — a conflict that Trump expressed aspirations to resolve. In her remarks, Gabbard mirrored Russian viewpoints around its invasion of Ukraine, implying that Moscow had good reasons to dispatch soldiers into the neighboring nation.
Gabbard didn’t only back Russian claims— she also publicly endorsed the allegation that the US and Ukraine participated in dangerous biological research prior to the conflict. However, she criticized the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, labeling his government a ‘corrupt autocracy’ while indicating sympathy towards Russia’s standpoint.
Remarkably, Gabbard suggested that Russian state media’s false assertion that the US engaged in undisclosed biological weapons study in Ukraine stood on firm ground. She argued this despite the open nature and non-malicious intent of these US-funded labs that were dedicated to conventional public health research and avoiding pandemics.
Unsettlingly, her claim that the aforementioned labs could ‘release and spread deadly pathogens’ mirrored Russian conspiracy theories around these health research facilities. She later clarified that she was talking about regular public health research, not secret biolabs. Notwithstanding this, Russia took her remarks seriously.
During her tenure in Congress, Gabbard made efforts to repeal a surveillance program designed to monitor suspected terrorists and foreign agents overseas. She alleged that the program, which was authorized initially in 2008 and has contributed to thwarting terror attacks and weaving ahead of foreign cyber threats, infringed on American’s privacy.
Despite her past opposition, she now seems to support this crucial intelligence tool as she seeks Senate confirmation. This sudden U-turn has left lawmakers from both parties worried that her past cynicism towards the surveillance program could pose a liability for her nomination as intelligence chief.
Perhaps one of the most surprising twists and turns in Gabbard’s political career is her sudden loyalty towards Trump. It’s a stark contrast to her position when she campaigned for president as a Democrat and eventually endorsed Joe Biden. Then, she remained neutral during Trump’s first impeachment hearing, though she openly expressed her disapproval of his conduct as president.
Gabbard served as a Democrat in Congress, representing Hawaii. In 2022, she declared herself as an independent, criticizing the Democratic Party as a collection of ‘elitist warmongers’ and ‘woke’ ideologues. Eventually, when she endorsed Trump last year, Gabbard stated that he possessed the ‘courage to meet with adversaries, dictators, allies and partners alike in the pursuit of peace, seeing war as a last resort’.
Reflecting on Gabbard’s nomination, we need to question if her controversial actions, confusing political loyalties, and her flip-flopping stance on important issues are representative of someone who can effectively direct our nation’s intelligence service. It’s evident that her confirmation hearing will not only be a testament of her qualifications but also her ability to maintain non-partisanship while handling sensitive national intelligence.