WASHINGTON — Tulsi Gabbard is poised to face intense scrutiny during her confirmation hearing scheduled for Thursday as Donald Trump’s choice to take over the directorship of the nation’s intelligence and national security operations. The former congresswoman from Hawaii has made headlines for her unconventional viewpoints, especially concerning past interactions with foreign powers and her stance on surveillance practices, which may raise questions from lawmakers.
As the nominee for the position that was established following the September 11 attacks in 2001, Gabbard would oversee the coordination among the various intelligence agencies responsible for ensuring national security. With a background as a lieutenant colonel in the National Guard and experience from two deployments in the Middle East, her track record is under review. Some officials in the intelligence community express concerns regarding her past statements that appear sympathetic toward Russia and critical of key national security initiatives.
One major topic expected to arise during her testimony relates to her visit to Syria in 2017 to meet with former President Bashar Assad. This journey sparked backlash from members across the political spectrum, who argued that her actions legitimized an individual accused of war crimes. Gabbard defended her trip, insisting that dialogue is crucial for understanding and advocating for peace in regions affected by conflict. She has claimed that addressing the suffering of the Syrian populace necessitates meeting with contentious figures if peace is to be achieved, a viewpoint she reiterated during her appearance on CNN at that time.
Gabbard has also expressed skepticism regarding allegations that Assad’s regime employed chemical weapons against civilians, despite widespread consensus from U.S. authorities and independent analysts affirming these accusations. Her comments led to further controversy when she characterized Assad’s regime as not posing a direct threat to the United States, aligning herself with notions expressed by Trump regarding the dynamics of Assad’s regime and its eventual fate.
When discussing the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, Gabbard has echoed Russian narratives suggesting that the U.S. and NATO have failed to acknowledge Russia’s security concerns, which she believes contributed to the hostilities. She has labeled the Ukrainian government as a corrupt autocracy and has shown understanding toward Russia’s motivations, asserting the conflict could have been avoided had the Biden administration been more considerate of Russia’s safety interests. Moreover, her support for the proposition that the U.S. engaged in dangerous biological research in Ukraine has drawn criticism for aligning with unfounded Russian propaganda.
On matters of government surveillance, Gabbard’s stance has shifted over time. Previously, she introduced legislation aimed at repealing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s Section 702, which allows for communication surveillance without a warrant. Concerns about civil liberties at the heart of her earlier objections have transformed now as she expresses support for the program, stating that updates made to the legislation have improved protections for Americans’ rights.
Gabbard’s political evolution is notable, as her departure from the Democratic Party and journey towards supporting Trump marks a drastic shift from her earlier critiques of the former president. She has publicly supported Trump’s approach as one that favors diplomacy over military action, declaring that under Biden, the U.S. faces a greater risk of nuclear confrontation. This transformation, along with her controversial views, raises questions about her suitability for the role she has been nominated for, highlighting a blend of ideologies that may complicate her confirmation process.
As the hearing takes place, it will be critical to watch how Gabbard addresses these complex issues and whether her responses will alleviate the apprehensions of lawmakers regarding her past actions and statements.
