Preferring to defend spy agencies and line up behind the hawkish consensus, the bipartisan elite ignores the director of national intelligence nominee’s rampant Islamophobia.
Still leaning left? Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump’s nominee to be director of national intelligence, testifies during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.(Daniel Heuer / Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Donald Trump’s slate of presidential nominees has been top-heavy with figures described as “controversial” and “polarizing”—but who might more accurately be describe as oddballs and misfits: Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Tulsi Gabbard. This group stands variously accused of alleged statutory rape (Gaetz), rape (Hegseth), antivax politics and sexual assault (Kennedy), and authoritarian aspirations (Patel). Gaetz has been the only one of these contentious nominees forced to withdraw—so far. Hegseth won a narrow confirmation. But even among this list of oddballs with repellent personal histories and authoritarian goals, Tulsi Gabbard—Trump’s nominee to be director of national intelligence (DNI)—stands out, since what makes her strange are her wild ideological shifts.
Former Hawaii governor Neil Abercrombie, a disillusioned former supporter, describes Gabbard as a “shapeshifter.” Abercrombie, a Democrat, was quoted in a New York Timesprofile that documented Gabbard’s wild dance across the political spectrum. She was born into the Science of Identity sect, described by the New York Times as “a secretive offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement vehemently opposed to same-sex relationships and abortion, and deeply suspicious of Islam.” Although she now says she is not associated with the Science of Identity Foundation and simply identifies as Hindu, the movement has been instrumental in supporting her throughout her career. Notably, when she was first elected to the Hawaii statehouse in 2002, she shared the Science of Identity’s opposition to abortion and marriage equality. Later on, when running for Congress as a Democrat, she disavowed those positions, although she has held steadfast in her Islamophobia, one of the few consistent commitments in her volatile political career.
In 2003, she was caught up in nationalist enthusiasm for George W. Bush’s war on terror and joined the military. But witnessing the carnage in Iraq, she turned against what she calls “regime change wars.” Elected to Congress in 2010, she had a biographical profile—military veteran, a woman, a racial minority, and skewing mildly conservative on social issues—that made her attractive to the party’s establishment. She was groomed to be a rising star but burned her bridges with the establishment by supporting Bernie Sanders for president in 2016. When Trump won in 2016, she was actively courted by MAGA leaders like Steve Bannon, who rightly saw her discontent with mainstream Democrats as a sign that she could be a potential recruit. In 2016, she met with the victorious candidate at Trump Towers when he was president elect.
Gabbard’s mix of foreign policy preferences—a deep aversion to regime change wars and democracy building efforts, unwavering support for Israel, a desire to deepen America’s ties to the Hindu nationalism in India—aligned her with Trump and Bannon’s America First foreign policy.
Like the MAGA movement, Gabbard is xenophobic but also wary of military interventions involving boots on the ground. This heterodox foreign policy mix also led her question America’s support of Ukraine—both before and after Russia’s invasion—and to praise Edward Snowden, who leaked a treasure trove of National Security Agency secrets in 2013, as a whistleblower who deserves a pardon. These latter two positions are the main source of national security elite aversion to Gabbard. As the Times notes, “Her nomination has alarmed national security officials of both parties, and Mr. Trump has privately told allies that hers is the cabinet confirmation he is most worried about.”
Given Gabbard’s checkered political career, there’s reason for people across the political spectrum, ranging from traditional conservative Republicans to liberals to leftists to oppose her nomination. Her one base of support might be MAGA ideologues who care about foreign policy—notably former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. But it’s unclear whether this faction has enough sway over Republicans in the Senate to successfully defend her from attacks by the foreign policy elite.
Current Issue
In the nomination hearings held on Thursday, Senate Democrats made a move—politically shrewd but dismaying in policy terms—to play up Gabbard’s foreign policy heterodoxy, especially her former defense of Snowden, which she only partly recanted. In terms of the dynamics of the Senate, this move makes sense. Republicans hold a majority of 53 Senate seats. To defeat a Trump nominee, Democrats need to flip four Republicans, otherwise the GOP will have 50 votes plus Vice President JD Vance as a tie breaker.
The mathematical logic means that to defeat Gabbard, Democrats needed to make a pitch that appeals to Republicans. But beyond the math, there is the broader political fact that in response to Trumpism, establishment Democrats prefer to build a centrist coalition by shoring up the national security consensus. Democratic Party leaders are deeply wedded to a policy of ancien régime restoration—which means that when they challenge Trumpism on foreign policy it is for his heterodoxy that offends the national security establishment (notably wanting a rapprochement with Russia and questioning the honesty and competence of intelligence agencies).
In the past, Gabbard has praised Snowden as a “brave” whistleblower who deserved clemency. She has now backtracked on this by saying that he “broke the law” and that she would not as head of the DNI support clemency. Both Republicans and Democrats hit her hard on this issue, with Colorado Democrat Michael Bennet thundering, “This is when you need to answer the questions of people whose votes you’re asking for to be confirmed as the chief intelligence officer of this nation. Is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America? This is not a hard question to answer when the stakes are this high.”
Gabbard still refused to describe Snowden as a traitor—which Democrats seized on as a means to discredit her. On X, formerly Twitter, Bennet posted, “Four times Tulsi Gabbard was asked if Edward Snowden is a traitor for releasing U.S. secrets & four times she declined to answer Democrats or Republicans. Anyone who refuses to label a traitor to the U.S. as a traitor is completely unqualified to lead our intelligence community.”
What Bennet refused to even consider was the possibility that, far from being a traitor, Snowden was a patriotic whistleblower who did the public a great service by revealing real government abuses—some of which were subsequently redressed by Congress.
Bennet and other Democrats on the committee were playing their old game of running to the right of Republicans on foreign policy. While this might be seen as smart politics in centrist circles—and could well sink Gabbard’s nomination—it’s questionable whether the public as a whole shares this implicit enthusiasm for the national security establishment and intelligence agencies. Trump twice won the presidency by being the voice of anti-system rage, with both the national security consensus and the intelligence services among his prime targets. Conversely, Democrats have twice lost to Trump by criticizing him as a disruptive force on foreign policy, while embracing such stalwarts of militarism as Henry Kissinger (extolled by Hillary Clinton in 2016) and Dick Cheney (celebrated by Kamala Harris in 2024). This strategy of being the hawkish pro-system party has torn the Democratic Party apart and alienated key parts of the party’s base.
What’s appalling about the whole spectacle is that there are many legitimate reasons for challenging Gabbard’s nomination—but scant interest in the Senate in raising these questions. As journalist Mehdi Hassan noted, “Sad that Democrats—instead of hitting Gabbard for her Islamophobia and support for genocide in Gaza and support for Assad and her alleged membership of a weird cult—are obsessing over the one thing she’s right about: Edward Snowden.”
If Gabbard is defeated, there will be little reason for regret. She deserves to go down, but is being targeted for the wrong reasons. The true tragedy is that the Democratic Party elite remains committed to keeping foreign debate as narrow as possible, eagerly enlisting as the bodyguards to an increasingly out of touch and discredited national security establishment.
Biden’s domestic agenda was the most progressive of any president since Lyndon Johnson. But it was entwined with a foreign policy that leaves his legacy drowned in blood.
Senate Democrats have recently come under fire for their criticism of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, but their attacks are misguided and unfair.
Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii, has been vocal about her opposition to military intervention and regime change wars, a stance that has put her at odds with many in her own party. While some Senate Democrats have accused her of being too cozy with dictators like Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, this criticism overlooks the important principles of non-intervention and diplomacy that Gabbard is advocating for.
Instead of attacking Gabbard for her willingness to engage in dialogue with foreign leaders, Senate Democrats should be applauding her for being a voice of reason and advocating for peaceful solutions to global conflicts. By demonizing Gabbard and attempting to silence her dissenting views, Senate Democrats are only further dividing the party and stifling important discussions on foreign policy.
It’s time for Senate Democrats to re-evaluate their attacks on Gabbard and recognize the value of her perspective in shaping a more peaceful and diplomatic approach to international relations. Let’s not let political differences overshadow the importance of promoting peace and diplomacy on the global stage.
Tags:
Senate Democrats, Tulsi Gabbard, political attacks, Democratic party, US Senate, 2020 election, political controversy, political news, Tulsi Gabbard criticism, political analysis
IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.
Nate Bargatze and Willie Geist share laughs at first-ever Sunday Sitdown Live
08:16
Nate Bargatze recalls strange job as water meter reader after 9/11
04:08
Air safety in the spotlight after US’ most significant commercial plane crash in 15 years
05:12
Punxsutawney Phil sees shadow, predicting 6 more weeks of winter
00:39
Toddler questions his mom’s baby bump: ‘Who put it in there?’
03:46
Iris Cummings Critchell, Olympian and aviator, dies at 104
02:01
Nate Bargatze marks first-ever Sunday Sitdown Live with ‘Mug Shot’
01:47
Grammy Awards 2025 preview: Beyoncé eyes Album of the Year
02:06
Third soldier identified in deadly midair collision over Potomac
00:35
Victims identified in air ambulance crash in Philadelphia
02:19
Now Playing
Tulsi Gabbard faces growing concern about nomination following confirmation hearing
01:58
UP NEXT
Canada, Mexico and China slam Trump’s tariffs
01:42
Lin-Manuel Miranda makes surprise ‘Hamilton’ cameo on ‘SNL’
00:34
Chiefs, Bills, Eagles and Commanders vie for Super Bowl LIX
02:21
Schoolhouse becomes national historic site honoring Latino culture
03:07
Boy details plan to ask school crush to be his Valentine
04:49
Fans ice fish under dazzling Northern Lights in Sunday Mug Shot
01:45
New giant pandas debut at Smithsonian’s National Zoo in Washington
04:17
CIA says COVID likely originated from Chinese lab
00:31
Report: GOP lawmakers pressured to get behind Trump nominees
02:04
Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker joins Sunday TODAY’s Willie Geist with new reports of growing concern that Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation for her nomination for director of national intelligence nomination could be in jeopardy.Feb. 2, 2025
Nate Bargatze and Willie Geist share laughs at first-ever Sunday Sitdown Live
08:16
Nate Bargatze recalls strange job as water meter reader after 9/11
04:08
Air safety in the spotlight after US’ most significant commercial plane crash in 15 years
05:12
Punxsutawney Phil sees shadow, predicting 6 more weeks of winter
00:39
Toddler questions his mom’s baby bump: ‘Who put it in there?’
03:46
Iris Cummings Critchell, Olympian and aviator, dies at 104
02:01
Nate Bargatze marks first-ever Sunday Sitdown Live with ‘Mug Shot’
01:47
Grammy Awards 2025 preview: Beyoncé eyes Album of the Year
02:06
Third soldier identified in deadly midair collision over Potomac
00:35
Victims identified in air ambulance crash in Philadelphia
02:19
Now Playing
Tulsi Gabbard faces growing concern about nomination following confirmation hearing
01:58
UP NEXT
Canada, Mexico and China slam Trump’s tariffs
01:42
Lin-Manuel Miranda makes surprise ‘Hamilton’ cameo on ‘SNL’
00:34
Chiefs, Bills, Eagles and Commanders vie for Super Bowl LIX
02:21
Schoolhouse becomes national historic site honoring Latino culture
03:07
Boy details plan to ask school crush to be his Valentine
04:49
Fans ice fish under dazzling Northern Lights in Sunday Mug Shot
01:45
New giant pandas debut at Smithsonian’s National Zoo in Washington
04:17
CIA says COVID likely originated from Chinese lab
00:31
Report: GOP lawmakers pressured to get behind Trump nominees
02:04
As Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, continues her bid for the Democratic nomination for President, concerns are mounting following her confirmation hearing. Gabbard, who has been criticized for her past statements and actions regarding foreign policy, faced tough questioning during the hearing, with many expressing doubts about her ability to lead the country.
During the hearing, Gabbard was pressed on her past connections to controversial figures, her stance on key issues such as healthcare and climate change, and her foreign policy views. Despite her attempts to clarify her positions, many were left unconvinced and worried about her candidacy.
Gabbard’s nomination has already faced skepticism from within the Democratic party, with some questioning her electability and her overall alignment with the party’s values. The growing concern following the confirmation hearing only adds to the doubts surrounding her candidacy.
As the race for the Democratic nomination heats up, all eyes will be on Gabbard and how she navigates these challenges. Will she be able to overcome the doubts and secure the nomination, or will her candidacy falter under the growing scrutiny? Only time will tell.
Watch: Key moments of Tulsi Gabbard’s senate confirmation hearing
Several of President Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees faced tough questioning from Republicans and Democrats alike during hours-long confirmation hearings on Thursday.
Former Democrat and military veteran Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s pick to be director of national intelligence, was grilled about her past remarks supporting government whistleblower Edward Snowden as well as her relationships with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syria’s former dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Nominee for FBI director, Kash Patel, a former federal prosecutor and Trump administration aide, was pressed on his prior comments praising those involved in the 6 January Capitol riots as well as his ties to the QAnon movement.
Here are some of the most memorable moments of the heated hearings.
Democrats probe Gabbard’s ties to Putin
Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii who ran for her party’s presidential nomination in 2020 before ditching the party and endorsing Trump in 2024, faced sharp questions about her past remarks about Russia’s war in Ukraine. She has been accused of repeating Russian propaganda to justify Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
At one point during the hearing, Democratic Senator Michael Bennet read several of Gabbard’s previous comments out loud, including when she said Putin had “legitimate security concerns” over Nato expansion in Eastern Europe.
The Colorado lawmaker accused Gabbard of agreeing that a “totalitarian state” was “justified in rolling over the peaceful border of Ukraine”.
He noted that Russian state TV aired her comments and called her “our friend Tulsi”.
Gabbard, a lieutenant colonel in the National Guard who was twice deployed to the Middle East, has no formal intelligence experience.
Gabbard mum on Snowden support
Both Republicans and Democrats quizzed Gabbard about her support for Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency whistleblower who leaked millions of classified documents that he alleged showed the US was conducting illegal surveillance of its citizens.
Critics said the leaks threatened American national security.
Lawmakers asked Gabbard multiple times whether she considered Snowden – someone whom she has previously called “brave” and argued should be pardoned for his crimes – a traitor to the US.
Gabbard dug in her heels on the matter, refusing to give a yes or no answer and making the moment uneasy for several Republicans.
“Snowden broke the law,” she told lawmakers. “He released information about the United States … I have more immediate steps that I would take to prevent another Snowden.”
A spotlight on Gabbard’s 2017 visit with Assad
Gabbard also faced scrutiny for a 2017 visit to Syria to meet then-President Bashar al-Assad.
The trip came after the US government demanded Assad step down because of his government’s attacks against its civilians, including with chemical weapons. Her trip drew criticism from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle at the time.
At the hearing on Thursday, Gabbard told lawmakers that she asked Assad “tough questions about his own regime’s actions”.
She also attempted to pre-emptively address incoming attacks over the visit, saying in her opening remarks: “I have no love for Assad or Gaddafi or any dictator.”
Gabbard added that she “shed no tears for the fall of the Assad regime” in December, when armed rebels took over the Syrian city of Damascus.
“But today we have an Islamist extremist who is now in charge of Syria,” she said.
Watch: Kash Patel quizzed about ‘enemies list’ at confirmation hearing
Patel grilled over support for Capitol rioters
During Patel’s five-hour hearing following Gabbard’s on Thursday, the former prosecutor came under fire for his previous support for Capitol rioters.
He once helped promote sales of a charity song recorded by the 6 January rioters in prison, including some who had been convicted of violence against police officers.
Several Democratic senators tried to push Patel about his ties to the rioters.
“Was President Donald Trump wrong to give blanket clemency to the January 6 defendants?” Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois asked.
“I have always rejected any violence against law enforcement, including in that group, any violence against law enforcement on January 6,” Patel responded.
Still at several points, Patel declined to criticise Trump’s pardon of rioters who assaulted officers.
Getty Images
FBI nominee presents a more moderate persona
Patel, a outspoken critic of the agency he’s been tapped to lead and a Trump loyalist, struck a more moderate tone on Thursday compared to some of his previous comments.
Explaining his criticisms of the FBI, Patel pointed to public opinion surveys that show declining confidence in the agency and highlighted two priorities, including tackling violent crime, which he said was “exploding in this country”.
If confirmed, he said, “I will remain focused on the FBI’s core mission, that is to investigate fully wherever there is a constitutional factual basis to do so”.
But Democrats continued to press him on his previous statements and activities.
Patel wrote a book called Government Gangsters, laying out his theories about a so-called “deep state” targeting Trump.
He has also expressed sympathy with the QAnon movement – a conspiracy theory which broadly speaking claims that a ring of satanic paedophiles operates inside the highest levels of government, media and business.
With reporting from Phil McCAusland
Tulsi Gabbard’s strong stance against regime change wars: During the hearings, Gabbard reiterated her opposition to the United States engaging in regime change wars, emphasizing the need for a more restrained foreign policy approach.
Kash Patel’s defense of his actions as a government official: Patel defended his role in the Trump administration, pushing back against allegations of improper conduct while serving as a senior official in the Department of Defense.
Gabbard’s call for transparency and accountability in government: Gabbard stressed the importance of holding government officials accountable for their actions, underscoring the need for greater transparency in the decision-making process.
Patel’s criticism of the intelligence community: Patel raised concerns about the credibility and reliability of the intelligence community, suggesting that there may be biases and agendas at play within these agencies.
Gabbard and Patel’s shared commitment to national security: Despite their differing views on certain issues, both Gabbard and Patel underscored their dedication to protecting national security and ensuring the safety of the American people.
If she is confirmed as director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard would be the youngest-ever in that role, the first millennial, the first Asian American, and only the second woman to hold the position.
But she is expected to face questions in her confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee about statements she has made that appear to support U.S. enemies and dictators as well as having no significant experience in intelligence. Gabbard can only afford to lose the votes of three Republicans and sources tell ABC News the vote on her nomination is expected to be a close one.
In excerpts from her opening statement, Gabbard confronts her critics.
“The truth is: what really upsets my political opponents is my consistent record of independence, regardless of political affiliation, and my refusal to be anyone’s puppet. You know who else is committed to defending our country and reforming Washington with a fierce and unparalleled independence, President Donald J. Trump who ran and won with a mandate for change this November,” she says in the excerpt.
For most of her career, Gabbard has broken barriers. She was the youngest woman ever elected to a state house of representatives and the first to graduate from the Accelerated Officer Candidate School at the Alabama Military Academy as a distinguished honor graduate. In Congress, she was the first Samoan American, the youngest woman elected at the time, and the first combat veteran to serve — a distinction she shares with Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth.
Gabbard has prepared extensively over the past two months for her hearings, meeting with former DNI leaders, including John Negroponte, the first DNI, and Michael Allen, who led Negroponte’s confirmation hearing preparations. She also has consulted with former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden, along with Trump allies Morgan Ortagus, deputy special presidential envoy for Middle East peace, and FBI director nominee Kash Patel.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard during the State of the Union address before members of Congress in the House chamber of the Capitol, Feb. 5, 2019.
Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images
She has sought input from a broad range of intelligence experts, former government officials and lawmakers across the aisle. She has participated in policy roundtables with lawyers, ex-intelligence officials, and national security negotiators, including figures involved in the Abraham Accords.
She also held a full-scale mock confirmation hearing ahead of Thursday’s Senate Intelligence Committee proceedings. Former Republican Sen. Richard Burr, who chaired the committee from 2015 to 2020, will introduce her.
Sources on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill tell ABC News Gabbard will likely face scrutiny over her past stances on Russia, Ukraine, Syria, and Iran, as well as her defense of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who reached a plea deal with the Justice Department over disseminating classified documents he had obtained illegally. Gabbard said last year on “Real Time With Bill Maher” that “the charges against him are one of the biggest attacks on freedom of the press that we’ve seen and freedom of speech.”
As a member of Congress, Gabbard introduced a bill in 2020 calling for the federal government to drop all charges against Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked information in 2013 about how the U.S. government surveils the American public.
She’s also expected to face question on her reversal on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a key surveillance tool she voted against reauthorizing in 2020, her last year in Congress.
Gabbard argued that Americans shouldn’t be forced to choose between security and liberty, saying that the Patriot Act and FISA have “been allowing for the abuses of our civil liberties and overreach by our own intelligence and law enforcement agencies through doing things like warrantless sweeping collection of our data, violating our Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.”
Gabbard is also expected to face questions past statements about former President Donald Trump including her decision to vote present on Donald Trump’s.
Over the last two months, Gabbard has met with more than 50 senators, primarily Republicans. The meetings have largely served as an introduction — an opportunity to explain her past positions and assuage concerns about her political evolution. A source close to her told ABC News, “They know they can’t put her in a box. She’s not a Democrat. She’s a new Republican. She has very similar, if not 100% aligned, views with President Trump on ‘America First’ foreign policy. That makes people uneasy because they can’t quite figure her out.”
Gabbard, like Trump, is a former Democrat whose policy views have shifted significantly. Her evolution has been shaped by her 22 years in the Army, including deployments to Iraq, Kuwait, and Djibouti. If confirmed, she will be the first female DNI to have served in the military. She plans to continue serving in the Army Reserve, which is permitted under ODNI regulations.
Behind the scenes, Gabbard has earned bipartisan support within the intelligence community for her willingness to engage with a range of stakeholders. Earlier this month, the families of two former ISIS and al-Qaeda hostages publicly endorsed her nomination in a letter shared with ABC News. The parents of Kayla Mueller, who was killed by ISIS, and Theo Padnos, a former al-Qaeda hostage, argued that the radicalization of individuals — such as Shamsud-Din Jabbar, who drove his truck into a crowd of New Orleans New Year’s revelers — underscores the need for Gabbard’s swift confirmation.
The letter of support came under scrutiny by some lawmakers after rebels toppled Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. Gabbard met with Assad in Syria in 2017, which remains a point of controversy. She has previously defended the trip as a “fact-finding mission” and has maintained that U.S. intervention in Syria empowered extremist groups.
Tulsi Gabbard, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence, arrives to meet with Senators on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 9, 2025.
Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images
Gabbard warned in the same year that she was concerned that toppling Assad’s regime could lead to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda to step in to fill the void and “completely massacre all religious minorities there in Syria.”
“I had no intention of meeting with Assad, but when given the opportunity, I felt it was important to take it,” Gabbard said in a 2017 statement. “We should be ready to meet with anyone if there’s a chance it can help bring about an end to this war.”
Padnos, who was kidnapped by the al-Nusra Front in 2012 and held for nearly two years, said Gabbard’s willingness to engage with hostage families compelled him to speak out.
“This is a woman with deep compassion for the victims of terrorism and the courage to get things done,” he told ABC News. “Nobody else has offered their help — except Tulsi.”
Gabbard told ABC News that she was “honored and humbled by that statement of support.”
She has also received backing from law enforcement. The National Sheriffs’ Association endorsed her nomination, citing her commitment to bridging intelligence gaps between federal agencies and local authorities. In a statement, the group praised Gabbard’s pledge to give sheriffs “a seat at the table” in national security discussions.
Former President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump dances as he leaves the stage after speaking alongside former Representative Tulsi Gabbard during a town hall meeting in La Crosse, Wis., Aug. 29, 2024.
Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP via Getty Images
Sheriff Kieran Donahue, president of the National Sheriffs’ Association, wrote “Gabbard has demonstrated a commitment to addressing the critical disconnect between our intelligence agencies and local law enforcement in preparing for sophisticated and pervasive threats.”
A source close to Gabbard told ABC News that her focus as director of national intelligence will be on restoring trust in the intelligence community and reforming what is and isn’t classified. Specifically, she aims to ensure that the intelligence provided to the Senate and White House is not information already available to lawmakers through media outlets. On Capitol Hill, lawmakers have expressed concern about the overclassification of information.
The source added that Gabbard intends to provide more accurate, raw intelligence to help lawmakers make informed decisions, rather than relying on overclassified data. She also plans to streamline the process for security clearances and return ODNI to its original mission — leading the intelligence community by fostering integration, collaboration and innovation.
Her allies argue that her outsider perspective will help modernize the intelligence community — though critics remain skeptical of her lack of traditional experience.
Thursday’s hearing will test whether Gabbard can win over skeptics — or if her controversial past will derail her bid to become the nation’s top intelligence officer.
Ahead of Gabbard ‘s hearing, a large group of veterans and supporters are expected to hold a rally near the Capitol Thursday morning.
Tulsi Gabbard, the former US Congresswoman and Democratic presidential candidate, has recently unveiled a bold plan to reform the US intelligence community if she were to be appointed as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
Gabbard’s plan includes a comprehensive overhaul of the current system, which she believes is plagued by inefficiency, lack of accountability, and widespread abuse of power. She has outlined several key reforms that she believes are necessary to improve the effectiveness and integrity of US intelligence agencies.
One of Gabbard’s main proposals is to increase oversight and transparency within the intelligence community. She wants to establish an independent oversight board to review and investigate potential abuses of power, as well as to ensure that intelligence agencies are operating within the bounds of the law.
Additionally, Gabbard has called for greater diversity and inclusion within the intelligence community, arguing that a more diverse workforce will lead to better decision-making and a broader range of perspectives. She also wants to prioritize the protection of whistleblowers and ensure that they are able to report wrongdoing without fear of retaliation.
Overall, Gabbard’s plan represents a significant departure from the status quo and has the potential to bring much-needed reform to the US intelligence community. If she were to be appointed as DNI, it will be interesting to see how her proposals are received and implemented.
Tags:
Tulsi Gabbard, US intelligence reform, DNI, Tulsi Gabbard policies, US national security, government intelligence reform, Tulsi Gabbard news, US politics, intelligence community, national security strategy
At a campaign rally in Virginia in June, Donald Trump hinted at the new kind of relationship America might have with Russia, China and North Korea if he were to be re-elected. “If you have a smart president, they’re not enemies,” Mr. Trump said. “You’ll make them do great.”
Mr. Trump has made no secret of his admiration for the governance style of dictators. He recently called Xi Jinping of China “a brilliant guy” for controlling “1.4 billion people with an iron fist.” He has signaled his sympathies with the new international order that Mr. Xi and other autocrats are seeking to create — in which to “do great” all too often means engaging in violence, transnational repression, foreign disinformation, espionage, sabotage and propaganda.
Perhaps none of Mr. Trump’s picks for his new cabinet embody this worldview better than former Representative Tulsi Gabbard, his choice for director of national intelligence. Her nomination encapsulates Mr. Trump’s apparent intent to reshape America’s global profile by cooperating with autocrats and facilitating the spread of their anti-democratic worldviews.
If democracy protection and preserving trust with foreign allies were the priorities of the Trump administration, Ms. Gabbard would not be set to appear before Congress. The director of national intelligence, who sits at the head of all American clandestine agencies, not only has access to classified materials from 18 U.S. intelligence agencies but also can decide what materials remain classified or become declassified. The director chooses what information to include in the president’s daily briefing and has a say on what should be shared with allies.
Ms. Gabbard is a singular choice in this regard. Her apparent affinity for the virulent strain of Hindu nationalism that has fueled Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assaults on Indian democracy, her off-the-books meeting with then-President Bashar al-Assad of Syria in 2017 and her repetition of Russian and Syrian government propaganda immediately raised alarms about her judgment and suitability for the job when Mr. Trump announced his choice in November. Since then, nearly 100 former U.S. diplomatic, intelligence and national security officials have signed an open letter accusing Ms. Gabbard of having a “sympathy for dictators,” among many other worrying allegations.
Russia experts and intelligence experts have frequently remarked on Ms. Gabbard’s history of taking positions that defend Russian interests or cast the United States as a villain. She blamed NATO and the Biden administration for provoking Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine nearly three years ago by failing to respect “Russia’s legitimate security concerns” and suggested that the United States covertly worked with Ukraine on dangerous biological pathogens. Whether regarding Syria or Russia, she has consistently portrayed “America as the problem and the dictators as misunderstood,” observed Tom Nichols, a national security analyst.
Mr. Trump appears to share some of these views. Many of his statements on foreign affairs suggest a similar internalization of an autocratic view of geopolitics that blames democracies for creating international conflict. When Mr. Trump suggests that President Joe Biden’s support of Ukraine’s bid to join NATO provoked Russia’s invasion, for instance, he too justifies the Kremlin’s autocratic aggression as a legitimate response to the hostile actions of a democracy.
It’s not just Ms. Gabbard’s views on foreign affairs that are indicative of how Mr. Trump envisions the aims of his second administration. If one thinks like an autocrat, the foremost quality that would seem to disqualify her from service — a simple lack of experience — is an asset, not a liability. Authoritarian-minded leaders value loyalty far more than expertise or competency. They hollow out democratic institutions by replacing nonpartisan civil servants and career professionals with individuals who will repeat their talking points and do their bidding, no matter what that entails. That’s what has happened in the Hungary of Prime Minister Viktor Orban, where opposition figures and nonpolitical professionals have been removed from public institutions such as election commissions and the judiciary.
For sensitive or weighty positions, autocrats may choose an outsider who lacks relationships with trusted experts in the field or an individual who seems unprepared to lead a large organization. Inexperienced individuals may be doubly dependent on the leader and vulnerable to the influence of the leader’s allies, and can be blamed for any mistakes or scandals that may surface. Ms. Gabbard could master the director’s job. But Mr. Trump’s choice of someone so unqualified at the start is telling.
All of this, of course, carries distinct national security risks. Intelligence experts have predicted a proliferation of chaos in their sphere if Ms. Gabbard is confirmed. They worry that her lack of personal connections with foreign intelligence professionals and the distrust engendered by her pro-autocratic sentiments are likely to affect foreign intelligence-sharing with the United States, including from our closest allies.
Spreading false information among enemy countries has been a staple of espionage and malign influence campaigns around the world. As someone who deployed to Iraq and Kuwait with the Army National Guard, Ms. Gabbard must know this well and should have been particularly alert to such misinformation. Yet she reportedly continued to rely on Russia Today for news, even after her aides told her it was Kremlin propaganda, and to circulate Syrian conspiracy theories, questioning, for instance, whether Mr. al-Assad’s 2013 and 2017 chemical weapons attacks might have been false-flag operations by Syrian rebels.
These national security risks will be redoubled if Mr. Trump chooses to follow the authoritarian playbook and use the intelligence community for personal gain. As nations edge toward autocracy, the spy agencies can be redirected toward a leader’s retribution schemes. The autocrat’s eternal quest to feel safe means there are always more internal enemies to be investigated and tracked, and more dissidents abroad to target. Under Mr. Modi, for instance, India’s Research and Analysis Wing has become more active in transnational repression of his critics in the Indian diaspora.
Six years ago, Mr. Trump suggested he was open to closer relationships with the world’s dictators. “I meet them all,” he declared. “Come on in. Whatever’s good for the United States.” His nomination of Ms. Gabbard for director of national intelligence suggests that he intends to renew the invitation. Autocrats may well find an even warmer reception in America during the second Trump administration. Our democracy will pay the price.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat is a historian and a professor of history at New York University. She is the author of “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present” and publishes Lucid, a newsletter about authoritarianism and democracy.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
In recent years, Tulsi Gabbard has made a name for herself as a controversial figure within the Democratic Party. From her views on foreign policy to her interactions with leaders like Bashar al-Assad, Gabbard has often been at odds with the mainstream Democratic establishment.
However, what many fail to realize is that Gabbard’s views actually align quite closely with those of President Donald Trump. Both politicians have advocated for a more isolationist approach to foreign policy, expressing skepticism of military intervention and advocating for a more America-first mindset.
Furthermore, Gabbard has been criticized for her conservative views on issues such as LGBTQ rights and gun control, aligning her more closely with the Republican Party than with her Democratic colleagues. This has led many to speculate that Gabbard could potentially switch parties or run as a third-party candidate in the future.
In many ways, Gabbard embodies the same populist, anti-establishment sentiment that propelled Trump to victory in 2016. Her willingness to challenge the status quo and advocate for unconventional policies has garnered her a dedicated following, much like Trump’s base of supporters.
While Gabbard may not be a perfect fit for the Republican Party, it’s clear that she shares many of the same values and priorities as the current president. Whether or not she chooses to align herself more closely with Trump in the future remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Tulsi Gabbard fits right into Trump’s vision for America.
Tags:
Tulsi Gabbard, Trump, America, political opinion, presidential candidate, Democratic Party, foreign policy, military intervention, Hawaii congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard’s support for pardoning Edward Snowden made her one of Donald Trump’s more intriguing picks when she was nominated for director of national intelligence. It has also made her one of his most vulnerable.
Gabbard is set to face pointed questioning from Republican supporters of government spying powers at her confirmation hearing Thursday, and her answers will reveal whether she is willing to flip-flop to secure the post.
Will Gabbard, a former member of Congress who has a long history of switching positions and even parties, change her tune as she already has done on National Security Agency spy powers? The White House did not respond to a request for comment, but senators exiting a closed-door Intelligence Committee hearing Tuesday said to stay tuned.
“We have talked about it privately, and we will certainly talk about it publicly,” said Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., who has called Snowden a “traitor.”
A Pardon Too Far
Trump has enthusiastically wielded his pardon Sharpie, but one name so far has failed to cross his desk.
For years, supporters of Snowden have urged presidents in both major parties to grant him a pardon in recognition of his consequential leaks in 2013, which revealed both the breadth of NSA spying and the way the government had warped the law to enable it.
Snowden, who has lived in Russia after receiving asylum there when his passport was revoked en route to Ecuador, was charged with Espionage Act violations that carry up to 30 years in prison. Those charges are still pending, despite several court rulings that the programs he revealed violated the law. As recently as last month, a judge ruled that one of the programs which Snowden helped to expose was unconstitutional.
In 2020, Trump mused about giving Snowden a pardon after previously calling him a “traitor,” but never followed through.
That same year, Gabbard co-sponsored with former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., a resolution calling on the government to drop all charges against Snowden. After Trump granted his former national security adviser Mike Flynn a pardon, Gabbard urged him to pardon Snowden as well.
“Since you’re giving pardons to people, please consider pardoning those who, at great personal sacrifice, exposed the deception and criminality of those in the deep state,” she said.
Her position made her stand out from many members of Congress, according to Alex Marthews, national chair of Restore the Fourth, a nonprofit organization that opposes government spying and supports a pardon.
“She was not alone, but it was an unusual position to take. There was outrage on the part of many members of Congress at the programs that were revealed, but it was also politically convenient for them to decry the manner in which they have been revealed, even if there was no other realistic way that they would have been revealed,” he said.
Five years later, Gabbard’s call for mercy has become a cause for concern for Snowden’s many enemies on the Senate Intelligence Committee, long home to some of the most fervent surveillance supporters and Snowden haters. Committee member Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who is considered one of the swing votes on Gabbard’s nomination, called her past support of Snowden a “concern.”
Lankford and Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said Tuesday that the issue has come up repeatedly in closed-door meetings with senators, but both declined to describe her response.
“I don’t know anyone that it hasn’t come up with,” Lankford said. “I’m going to let her answer all of her own questions when she gets in front of us.”
Relief Still Sought
As recently as November, the New York Post reported that Gabbard still considered a pardon important and planned to push for it in office, citing “a person close to Gabbard.” However, New York Times reporting Wednesday suggests that she may distance herself from her past position.
Marthews said he hoped she would stay the course.
“He should not only be pardoned for what he did, he should be honored,” Marthews said.
Gabbard is also likely to face questioning over her position on one of the most controversial laws undergirding NSA spying, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
That law allows the FBI to comb through the text messages, emails, and phone call records of U.S. citizens that the NSA has collected while picking up the communications of foreigners living abroad. Critics say the FBI should be required to get a warrant before searching those communications, and last month, a federal district judge agreed.
We’re independent of corporate interests — and powered by members. Join us.
Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you.
Will you take the next step to support our independent journalism by becoming a member of The Intercept?
The surveillance supporters on the Senate Intelligence Committee have generally pushed back on a warrant requirement, falling in line with government officials such as former FBI Director Christopher Wray, who said last year that it would “blind” federal agents seeking to combat cyberattacks and terrorism.
Gabbard earlier this month issued a statement that did not directly address whether she supports a warrant requirement but reflected a softening of her past criticism of government surveillance. She called the intelligence-gathering program “crucial,” while adding that it “must be safeguarded to protect our nation while ensuring the civil liberties of Americans.”
One of the few Intelligence Committee members to support a warrant requirement, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he planned to focus on Gabbard’s position on that issue rather than Snowden.
“I’m trying to flesh out what her positions are on 702,” Wyden said.
As a controversial figure in American politics, Tulsi Gabbard’s stance on issues can often be unpredictable. With the recent news of President Trump considering a pardon for whistleblower Edward Snowden, many are wondering if Gabbard will flip-flop on her previous support for Snowden.
In the past, Gabbard has been a vocal advocate for Snowden, praising his actions in exposing government surveillance programs and calling for his pardon. However, as she continues to navigate her political career and appeal to a wider audience, some speculate that she may backtrack on her support for Snowden in order to align herself with the current administration.
Will Gabbard stay true to her principles and continue to support Snowden’s pardon, or will she change her stance in an effort to gain favor with the establishment? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain – Gabbard’s position on this issue will be closely watched and scrutinized by both supporters and critics alike.
Tags:
Tulsi Gabbard, Edward Snowden, pardon, political flip-flop, government surveillance, whistleblower, national security, civil liberties, presidential candidate, controversial stance
Senate Republicans are eyeing a backup plan to get Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination to the floor if she can’t win over all nine of their Intelligence Committee members.
It wouldn’t be pretty, but it could get her a floor vote — and, potentially, confirmation as President Donald Trump’s director of national intelligence.
The Intelligence Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has the power to send Gabbard’s nomination to the full Senate with no recommendation — or an unfavorable recommendation, which is less ideal – rather than a favorable vote. With Gabbard’s nomination facing severe headwinds on the panel, those could end up as Republicans’ best options to get her confirmed if she can’t reverse her fortunes.
“There are probably, perhaps, creative ways” to get Gabbard out of committee, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Semafor. “But obviously, ideally, you want to see a nominee that’s coming out of committee with an affirmative vote.”
Asked if he’d consider using the back-up plan, Thune replied: “Don’t want to go there.”
As Gabbard prepares for a Thursday committee hearing that could make or break her bid to join Trump’s Cabinet, though, there’s quiet talk among Republicans about extracting her from the committee without a favorable recommendation. The former Hawaii Democratic congresswoman wouldn’t be the first Trump nominee to take that rare route to confirmation.
In 2017, the Senate Homeland Security Committee advanced Mick Mulvaney’s nomination to be Trump’s White House budget director to the floor with no recommendation amid reservations from former Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who was a panel member at the time. Mulvaney eventually got confirmed.
GOP leaders would clearly prefer that the Senate confirm Gabbard via the usual process, reporting her favorably to the floor after her hearing. But the 53-seat Republican majority has enough reservations about her nomination to put her whip count in jeopardy.
Chief among Gabbard’s issues: Her past statements that some have seen as too warm toward Vladimir Putin, her meeting with deposed Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and her views on US intelligence programs.
Cotton is defending Gabbard on social media and “coordinating closely with Tulsi and her team for the hearing,” a person familiar with the process told Semafor. The Intelligence chairman’s clear task is to get her out of committee to the floor, where Thune and Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso would work to ensure she has 50 votes.
The full Senate can also vote to discharge nominees from committee if the panel is unable to cobble a majority together for anything, but that can be subject to a 60-vote threshold. A previous agreement to bring tied committee votes to the floor expired with the 50-50 Senate in 2022.
Republicans could also report other Trump nominees to the Senate floor without favorable recommendations if they get tied up in committee. One example: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who also faces Senate committees this week.
After facing pushback from some members of the Republican party over their support for Tulsi Gabbard as a potential nominee for a cabinet position, GOP leaders are now reportedly considering a backup plan to ensure her confirmation.
Despite Gabbard’s bipartisan appeal and foreign policy experience, some Republicans have expressed concerns about her past stances on issues such as Syria and her perceived ties to foreign leaders. As a result, party leaders are exploring alternative strategies to secure her confirmation, including reaching out to moderate Democrats for support and potentially offering concessions on other nominees.
While Gabbard’s nomination is still in the early stages and no official decision has been made, Republicans are determined to find a way to get her confirmed and are actively working behind the scenes to make it happen. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
Donald Trump Jr. issued a stark warning to Republican senators ahead of the confirmation hearing for Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence (DNI). In a tweet, Trump Jr. wrote, “Any Republican Senator who votes against @TulsiGabbard deserves a primary. No more Deep State b******!!!!” The Senate Intelligence Committee is set to hold a hearing on January 30 to assess Gabbard’s qualifications. The hearing follows delays from Senate Democrats, who cited incomplete background checks, ethics disclosures, and other paperwork on the controversial nominee.
If confirmed, Gabbard—a former Democratic congresswoman—would oversee all 18 US intelligence agencies. However, her nomination has sparked sharp debate in Washington. Critics point to her lack of intelligence experience and her controversial relationships with US adversaries. Gabbard faced scrutiny for meeting with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2017, shortly after allegations emerged that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. She has also been a vocal defender of whistleblower Edward Snowden and has echoed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rhetoric regarding the war in Ukraine. Despite these concerns, Gabbard has sought to build bipartisan support, notably reversing her stance on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Once critical of the program, Gabbard now supports its use to allow US intelligence agencies to monitor foreign nationals abroad without a warrant. “If confirmed as DNI, I will uphold Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights while maintaining vital national security tools like Section 702 to ensure the safety and freedom of the American people,” Gabbard said in a statement earlier this month. Her shift on Section 702 has garnered support from prominent Republican lawmakers, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). The upcoming hearing is expected to be contentious, as senators from both parties weigh Gabbard’s qualifications and past actions against her recent pledges to support national security initiatives.
2020 Democratic Debate – SNL
Why Gabbard has an uphill battle
Tulsi Gabbard’s lack of formal intelligence experience is a major concern for her nomination as Director of National Intelligence (DNI), given the critical oversight role of managing the US’s 18 intelligence agencies. While her military and congressional background is notable, critics argue it may not sufficiently prepare her for the complexities of the intelligence domain. Her foreign policy stances have drawn bipartisan criticism. Gabbard’s 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, known for human rights abuses, and her controversial comments on US-funded biolabs in Ukraine, perceived as echoing Russian propaganda, have raised serious questions about her judgment. Gabbard’s perceived sympathies toward adversarial nations, including Russia and Syria, have further fueled skepticism about her ability to provide unbiased intelligence assessments. These perceptions stem from her public statements and diplomatic interactions that some view as overly conciliatory. Read: The obscure cult that could ruin Tulsi Gabbard’s chances The most contentious issue is her association with the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF), a religious organization described by critics as cult-like. Allegations that SIF leader Chris Butler exerted influence over her political career raise concerns about potential undue external influence in her decision-making. Her shifting political allegiances, including her departure from the Democratic Party and endorsement of Donald Trump, have raised eyebrows. This evolution in her political stance has alienated members of both parties, complicating her confirmation prospects. Ethical and financial concerns have also emerged. Delays in her confirmation hearings are attributed to incomplete ethics paperwork, and scrutiny of her financial disclosures, including media earnings and book deals, has sparked questions about potential conflicts of interest. Bipartisan opposition presents a significant hurdle for Gabbard’s nomination. Senators from both sides, including Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Tammy Duckworth, have voiced reservations, reflecting widespread unease about her suitability for the DNI role. Public and intelligence community skepticism adds to the challenges. Figures like John Bolton have openly criticized her nomination, citing her controversial past and perceived vulnerabilities, which many argue make her unfit to manage the nation’s intelligence operations.
In a recent interview, Donald Trump Jr issued a stark warning to any Republican who dares to vote against Tulsi Gabbard in the upcoming election. The son of former President Donald Trump stated that Gabbard, a Democrat who has gained popularity among some conservative circles, is a strong and formidable candidate who should not be underestimated.
Trump Jr emphasized that Gabbard’s positions on issues such as foreign policy and government transparency align closely with those of the Republican party, making her a valuable ally in the fight against the radical left. He warned that any Republican who dares to vote against Gabbard will face the consequences of alienating a potential key ally in the battle for conservative values.
The warning from Trump Jr comes at a time when Gabbard’s popularity among Republicans is on the rise, with many praising her independent and principled stance on various issues. It remains to be seen how Gabbard’s candidacy will impact the upcoming election, but one thing is clear – Republicans would be wise to heed Trump Jr’s warning and consider the potential consequences of turning their backs on a candidate who could be a valuable ally in the fight against the left.
Sign up for Trump’s Return, a newsletter featuring coverage of the second Trump presidency.
Long before Donald Trump rewarded Tulsi Gabbard’s loyalty with a nomination to be the next director of national intelligence, before her friendliness with Tucker Carlson, and before her association with the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, she was loyal to another charismatic leader. A man who remains mostly unknown outside Hawaii but is reputed to have a powerful hold over his followers.
That leader is Chris Butler, the founder of an offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement in Hinduism, called the Science of Identity Foundation. Butler’s followers know him as Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, and Gabbard, who identifies as Hindu, has called him her “guru-dev,” or spiritual master. According to its website, the foundation promotes yoga meditation to achieve spiritual and physical enlightenment, but Butler, well known for his fervent and graphic sermons about the evils of gay sex, does not appear to tolerate dissent from his followers. Some former devotees have called the secretive group a cult.
Other than raw ambition, Gabbard’s adherence to Butler’s foundation has been the only perceptible through line in her switchbacking, two-decade political career. First there was an astonishingly quick leap from enigmatic state lawmaker to national Democratic Party leader; then came Gabbard’s almost-as-quick falling-out with the party establishment; there followed an inscrutable congressional record, including a seemingly inexplicable visit with a Middle East dictator; after that was Gabbard’s stint as a Fox News media darling, and finally her rebirth as a MAGA Republican, nominated to be America’s next spymaster.
While Gabbard awaits a confirmation hearing, even senators in Trump’s party seem concerned about her suitability. Maybe they should be: Democrats figured out the hard way that they couldn’t rely on Gabbard; Republicans may soon learn the same.
To understand how Gabbard ended up in the middle of such a strange ideological Venn diagram, it helps to know about her early years. Born in American Samoa, Gabbard grew up in Hawaii, where she was homeschooled and spent time surfing in the blue waves off Oahu. Her father, Mike, is now a Democratic state senator, but he’s done a bit of his own party-flipping; during Gabbard’s childhood, Mike was an independent, and later switched to the Republican Party, after leading Hawaii’s movement against same-sex marriage. He launched a group called Stop Promoting Homosexuality Hawaii and hosted a radio show titled Let’sTalk Straight Hawaii. In 1998, Mike Gabbard put out a TV ad featuring a teenage Tulsi and her siblings that likened marrying someone of the same sex to marrying your dog.
The Gabbard family was—and, according to several Hawaii residents and people familiar with the group, still is—devoted to Butler and his foundation. “The belief system was [Butler’s] interpretation of the Hare Krishna belief system, plus Buddhism, Christianity, and whatever else,” Lalita Mann, a former disciple of Butler’s, told me. Fraternizing with outsiders was frowned upon, Mann said; complete obedience was expected: “To offend him would be offending God.” Gabbard’s own aunt once described the group as “the alt-right of the Hare Krishna movement.”
Butler had an appetite for temporal as well as spiritual power. Gabbard, a smart, good-looking girl from a political family, always appealed to him, Mann and Anita Van Duyn, another defector from the group, told me. Butler described Gabbard as a stellar pupil of his teaching. In her teens, Gabbard reportedly attended a school run by Butler’s followers in the Philippines. “He always wanted someone to be high up in the federal government” to direct the culture toward godliness, Van Duyn told me. Trump’s team rejected this characterization. “This is a targeted hit on her faith, fomenting Hinduphobia,” Alexa Henning, a spokesperson for the Trump transition, told me. “The repeated attacks that she has sustained from the media and Democrats about her faith and her loyalty to our country are not only false smears; they are bigoted as well.” (Gabbard herself did not respond to requests for comment for this story.)
The Science of Identity Foundation leader was not the only person to see Gabbard’s appeal. The people I interviewed described the surfer cum mixed-martial-arts aficionado as shy but warm. She has a rich, low voice, and always greets people with a friendly “Aloha.” Her demeanor helps explain how quickly she rocketed to political success from a young age. She chooses her words carefully, and listens intently, often seeming like the most mature person in a room, even when she is one of the youngest. “She cocks her head, and she pulls you in” to the “Tulsi hug,” one Hawaii Democrat told me. “It’s very mesmerizing.” Gabbard, in other words, has charisma. And she has always made it count.
In 2002, soon after she married her first husband, Gabbard dropped out of community college and ran for a seat in the Hawaii state House. In that race, and in others that followed, a swarm of volunteers associated with Butler’s group would descend on the district to knock on doors and pass out yard signs, according to someone who worked with Gabbard’s campaign in those early days, and who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. Back then, Gabbard shared her father’s views on same-sex marriage and opposed abortion rights, two positions that were—particularly in recent years—politically risky in solid-blue Hawaii. But she was clearly struggling to form her ideology, the former campaign colleague said, and determine a political identity of her own.
After one term in office, Gabbard joined the Hawaii Army National Guard, and went to Iraq as part of a medical unit, the first of two Middle East deployments. After her return, she and her husband divorced. In 2010, she ran successfully for a seat on the Honolulu city council. “She was as ambitious as you could possibly be,” Gabbard’s campaign colleague told me. And she was respected. Gabbard was racking up experiences, fleshing out her political résumé. Congress was next for Gabbard, and everybody knew it.
In the fall of 2011, something happened that shocked politicians in Hawaii. EMILY’s List, the national organization whose goal is to elect pro-abortion-rights women to Congress, announced that it was backing Gabbard. To political observers, it didn’t make sense. Gabbard had a D behind her name, but was she really a Democrat? Behind the scenes, EMILY’s List was wondering the same thing. Although her position on abortion had evolved in ways acceptable to the organization, Gabbard was still iffy on same-sex marriage. Her answers on the EMILY’s List application had made its leaders uneasy, one former staffer told me, and that staffer was asked to call Gabbard for clarification. During their conversation, Gabbard said she didn’t want the government involved in marriage. The staffer pointed out that the government was already involved in heterosexual marriage, so it wouldn’t be fair to deny the same access to gay couples. Gabbard seemed not to have considered this, the staffer told me, and after only a few minutes on the phone, Gabbard declared that her position had changed. Politicians typically do some finagling to secure the support of special-interest groups, but this was different.
“I’ve never had another conversation like that,” said the staffer, who still works in Democratic politics but asked to remain anonymous in order to speak candidly. “She was willing to do or say whatever. It was like she had absolutely no moral compass.” I heard the same sentiment from numerous people who have worked with Gabbard, both in Hawaii and at the federal level.
Gabbard’s leftward journey was well under way. Her second Middle East deployment, to Kuwait, had inspired a “gradual metamorphosis” on social issues, she told Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, adding, “I’m not my dad. I’m me.” By the time she got to Congress, in 2013, Democrats had embraced her like a long-lost friend. Gabbard was celebrated as the first Hindu member of Congress and was eagerly welcomed in the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. Nancy Pelosi called her an “emerging star,” and House leaders gave her a seat on the prominent Armed Forces Committee. She was, to use a more contemporary comparison, AOC before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
“There was this initial huge fascination with Gabbard” inside the party, a former Democratic House staffer, who requested anonymity to speak about his time working closely with Gabbard, told me. President Barack Obama himself lobbied for Gabbard to get a vice chairmanship on the Democratic National Committee, its former chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told me. The Florida lawmaker hesitated at first. “I was warned early on that she was close to extremists in Hawaii,” Wasserman Schultz told me, referring to anti-gay activists. Still, she gave Gabbard the benefit of the doubt.
Gabbard proved popular among the other freshmen. “She was funny, she was engaging,” a former House colleague and friend of Gabbard’s, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, told me. She ran around with a small, bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Representatives Beto O’Rourke of Texas, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, and Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma; some of them met for CrossFit in the mornings.
But the congressional crush on Gabbard fizzled almost as quickly as it began. Wasserman Schultz told me that the DNC had a hard time getting Gabbard to show up for meetings or conference calls. When a House vote against employment discrimination came up, Gabbard was difficult to pin down, Wasserman Schultz said—even though, as a DNC vice chair, she should have been “the easiest ‘yes’ in the caucus.”
Gabbard seemed eager to stand out in a different way. She took to sitting on the Republican side of the House chamber. Despite her DNC perch, she voted with Republicans to condemn the Obama administration for not alerting Congress about a prisoner exchange with the Taliban in 2014, and the next year criticized the Democratic president’s reluctance to refer to Islamic State terrorists as “Islamic extremists.”
The representative from Hawaii was not facing a tough reelection, so none of these positions made sense to her fellow Democrats. Some suggested that she was a rare independent thinker in Congress; others identified in her a less virtuous strain of opportunism. Gabbard had “masked herself as a progressive to gain power,” Wasserman Schultz told me. After all, voters in Hawaii almost never elect Republicans to Congress.
Others pointed to deeper forces. “I think something happened around 2013,” Gabbard’s campaign colleague from Hawaii told me, pointing out that, at the time, several of her original congressional staffers resigned, and Gabbard replaced them with people affiliated with the Science of Identity Foundation. In 2015, Gabbard married Abraham Williams, the son of her office manager, both of whom, the colleague told me, were involved in the group. The couple’s Oahu wedding was attended by several members of Congress, including then–House Whip Steny Hoyer, as well as a representative from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu-nationalist party. It seemed as though Butler’s group had reeled her back in, the campaign colleague said. He remembers thinking, “I don’t know who the hell you are anymore.”
During the 2016 Democratic primary, Gabbard resigned from the DNC and endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders’s campaign for president because, she said, Hillary Clinton was too hawkish. Sanders-aligned progressives appreciated her support, especially because the Vermont senator had just been shellacked in South Carolina. On the trail, Gabbard spoke confidently about anti-interventionism, climate change, and Medicare for All. “I couldn’t think of an issue then where we had any degree of separation,” Larry Cohen, a union leader and the chair of the pro-Sanders progressive group Our Revolution, told me.
Senator Bernie Sanders with Gabbard at his campaign rally in Gettysburg ahead of the Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, April 2016 (Mark Wilson / Getty)
But, in 2017, Gabbard made a move that stumped her new progressive friends, as well as most everyone else: She flew to Syria, in the middle of its civil war, and twice met with the now-deposed dictator Bashar al-Assad, who had by then already killed hundreds of his own people using chemical weapons, and who clung to power thanks to aid from Vladimir Putin. The original plan, according to a former staffer for Gabbard, had been to meet with everyday Syrians and “bear witness.” But as The Washington Postreported today, the trip’s actual itinerary deviated dramatically from the one that had been approved by the House Ethics Committee. The meetings with Assad had not been in the plan, and even Gabbard’s staffer, like others on her team, did not know about them until after they’d happened. “You fucked us,” the staffer, who also asked for anonymity to speak about confidential matters, remembers telling Gabbard later. “The reason you told us you were going on this trip will never come up again. It will only ever be about you meeting with Assad.”
For D.C. institutionalists, Gabbard’s conversations with Assad broke a long-standing convention that members of Congress do not conduct freelance foreign policy. But many also saw the trip as an unforgivable swerve toward autocracy.
Outside the Washington scene, Gabbard’s independence and charisma still counted. When Gabbard ran in the Democratic presidential primary in 2019, she could still muster an enthusiastic if motley alliance of progressives, libertarians, and conservative Hindus. She also did well among the kind of people who are fond of saying that all politicians are corrupt and neither political party is good for America. “I’m voting for her. I decided. I like her. I met her in person. Fuck it,” Joe Rogan said on his podcast that year.
Despite that glowing endorsement, Gabbard never scored above single digits in the contest, and dropped out of the race in March 2020. In the years that followed, she would pop up now and again with new and surprising takes. In December 2020, Gabbard introduced a bill to ban trans women and girls from playing women’s sports, plus two pieces of anti-abortion legislation. In 2021, she left Congress altogether. The next year, when Russia invaded Ukraine, she blamed President Joe Biden and NATO for ignoring “Russia’s legitimate security concerns.” Then she turned up as a featured speaker at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.
At a late-summer conference in Michigan last year, Gabbard announced that she was supporting Donald Trump for president. She completed her political migration in October at a MAGA rally in North Carolina, when she said that she was joining the Republican Party. She praised Trump for transforming the GOP into “the party of the people and the party of peace.” Her message was that she hadn’t left the Democrats; they had left her. “People evolve on politics all the time,” the former House colleague and friend told me. “But that’s a long way from saying Hey, the party went too far to embracing Donald Trump.”
Gabbard’s instincts are those of a “moth to a flame of power,” Wasserman Schultz told me. And Trump’s flame is burning brightly again. But in Gabbard’s dogged pursuit of power, or at least of proximity to power, others see the influence not of a new guru, but of the old one: Butler. “She’s his loyal servant,” Van Duyn, the Science of Identity Foundation defector, said, and Gabbard regards him as “possessing infallible authority.” Van Duyn also told me that she has sent letters to several Democratic lawmakers, asking them to vote against Gabbard’s confirmation as DNI because she fears that sensitive intelligence “can and will be communicated to her guru.”
Each of the current and former Democratic lawmakers I spoke with for this story had concerns about the Gabbard-Butler relationship. “There are some very tough questions that need to be asked,” Representative Jill Tokuda, Democrat of Hawaii, told me. “Who’s really calling the shots when it comes to what Tulsi Gabbard believes?”
Gabbard at the Trump campaign rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City, on October 27, 2024 (Michael M. Santiago / Getty)
Butler, who is now in his late 70s and reportedly living in a beachfront home in Kailua, did not respond to a request for comment. But in a statement, Jeannie Bishop, the foundation’s president, disputed the accounts of people whom the group considers to be “propagating misconceptions,” and accused the media of “fomenting” Hinduphobia. (Butler’s foundation, along with a collection of 50 Hindu groups, sent out a press release last week blasting recent media coverage as “Hinduphobic.”)
Regardless of whom her opportunism ultimately serves, political opportunity has come again for Gabbard. After she hitched her wagon to Trump, he chose her to be his spymaster in chief—a position for which she does not seem remotely qualified. The current director, Avril Haines, was confirmed after previously serving as deputy national security adviser, deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and deputy counsel to the president for national-security affairs in the Office of White House Counsel. Gabbard has no similar background in intelligence or agency leadership. Henning, the Trump spokesperson, pointed to Gabbard’s endorsement from former CIA Director of Counterterrorism Bernard Hudson, who has commended Gabbard’s “independent thinking.”
Gabbard’s Assad visit and her pro-Russian views also remain fresh in the minds of many in Congress. Nothing proves that Gabbard is a “Russian asset,” as Hillary Clinton once famously put it, but Moscow seems gleeful about her selection to lead the intelligence agency: “The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. are trembling,” the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravdacrowed after her nomination was announced. Another Russian state outlet called Gabbard a “comrade.”
Judging by the congressional hearings so far, traditional expertise and credentials may not matter much to the GOP lawmakers charged with confirming Trump’s picks. But the incoherence of Gabbard’s ideological evolution may yet count against her: Reliability could be the sticking point. Republicans should know, as well as Democrats, that “she’s ruthless in her pursuit of personal power,” the Hawaii campaign colleague told me. “Even if that means disappointing MAGA folks or Trump, it’s clear she’d do it in a heartbeat.”
During her eight years in Congress, Gabbard was a fierce defender of privacy rights, something her supporters on both the right and the left long admired. In particular, she had opposed the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, legislation that permits some warrantless surveillance of American citizens. But after meeting with senators last week, Gabbard announced that the act’s surveillance capability “must be safeguarded.” The would-be director of national intelligence had had a change of heart.
In a recent article published by The Atlantic, the enigmatic and controversial Tulsi Gabbard is explored in depth. Gabbard, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, has often defied easy categorization and has been a polarizing figure in American politics.
The article delves into Gabbard’s background as a military veteran, her unorthodox foreign policy views, and her complicated relationship with the Democratic Party establishment. Gabbard’s support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and her meetings with controversial figures like Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad have raised eyebrows and led to accusations of being sympathetic to authoritarian regimes.
Despite her unorthodox views, Gabbard has garnered a passionate following among some progressives and anti-interventionist voices. Her unapologetic stance on issues like regime change wars and military intervention has resonated with some voters who are disillusioned with the current political establishment.
However, Gabbard’s political future remains uncertain. With her decision not to seek re-election to Congress and her low polling numbers in the Democratic primary race, it’s unclear what lies ahead for the enigmatic Tulsi Gabbard.
The Atlantic’s article offers a nuanced and comprehensive look at Gabbard, highlighting both her strengths and weaknesses as a political figure. Whether she will continue to be a prominent voice in American politics or fade into obscurity remains to be seen. But one thing is certain – Tulsi Gabbard will always remain a figure shrouded in mystery and controversy.
Tags:
Tulsi Gabbard, The Atlantic, political analysis, Democratic candidate, Hawaii Congresswoman, presidential campaign, American politics, Tulsi Gabbard controversy, progressive leader, 2020 election, foreign policy, military background
