WASHINGTON — Tulsi Gabbard returned to Washington eight years ago after an unpublicized meeting with Syria’s president Bashar Assad, facing a barrage of criticism. At the time, the then-congresswoman from Hawaii was condemned by fellow lawmakers and civil rights organizations for engaging with a leader widely viewed as a U.S. adversary, who had been accused of war crimes and severe human rights violations. A Republican colleague labeled the visit as a “disgrace.”
Gabbard defended her visit, stating her intention was to seek a peaceful resolution to the Syrian conflict. However, the conversations details between her and Assad remain unclear, which have continued to haunt her, especially now as President Donald Trump has nominated her for the role of director of national intelligence. Gabbard can only afford to lose support from three Republican senators if she faces unanimous opposition from Democrats. Some Republican officials have refrained from revealing their voting intentions. Senator Lindsey Graham emphasized the importance of her confirmation hearing, set for Thursday, expressing a need to understand the motives behind her trip to Syria and her interactions with Assad before making a decision.
This meeting with Assad marks a pivotal moment during Gabbard’s congressional tenure and provides context into her political views, reflecting an unconventional approach to governance. Since her arrival in Congress in 2013, Gabbard has consistently challenged the foreign policy stances of various presidential administrations, including that of Trump. Her views have raised bipartisan concerns regarding her suitability for the intelligence director post. Trump and his supporters have downplayed the backlash; Trump himself noted his own controversial meetings with world leaders in defense of Gabbard, labeling her as a “highly respected person.”
A spokeswoman for the Trump transition said that Gabbard’s trip was sanctioned by the House ethics committee, included post-trip discussions with U.S. officials, and has not received significant scrutiny from senators regarding her private meetings. Nevertheless, experts in national security characterize Gabbard’s nomination as an enigmatic choice. Her controversial stances include advocating for the pardon of Edward Snowden, known for leaking classified information, and suggesting a rollback of crucial intelligence measures. Critics have also accused her of harboring pro-Russian sentiments and being sympathetic to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has long been a target for U.S. intelligence.
“Gabbard is a very unconventional candidate for director of national intelligence,” remarked Jamil N. Jaffer, who leads the National Security Institute at George Mason University. He noted that Trump has appointed both mainstream candidates and a few puzzling choices, leaving observers questioning Gabbard’s nomination.
A combat veteran and former rising star within the Democratic Party, Gabbard has shifted her political alignments and found common ground with Trump and populist ideologies. Her skepticism regarding the use of American military force in international scenarios has garnered her both praise from certain progressive circles and support from Trump’s base, amidst ongoing debates about the U.S.’s global role.
She entered Congress in 2013 amid the escalating Syrian conflict, which originated from the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011. Unlike many authoritarian regimes that fell, the Assad government managed to maintain power with support from Iran and Russia. Over time, Gabbard transitioned from questioning specific aspects of U.S. involvement in Syria to doubting the accuracy of information shared with the public.
During a 2015 trip to the Turkish-Syrian border led by Senator Tim Kaine, Gabbard’s interactions raised eyebrows. Reportedly, she challenged the accounts of young Syrian girls who had suffered injuries due to airstrikes, questioning the assignment of blame to Assad. While associated interview narratives have been disputed, her consistent questioning of U.S. claims regarding Assad’s actions, particularly concerning alleged chemical attacks, has drawn ire.
Gabbard’s 2017 trip to Syria occurred just before Trump assumed the presidency, arranged by the Khawam brothers, who are active within the Arab-American community and have ties to broader political movements. The brothers aimed to engage Gabbard in the ongoing narrative surrounding U.S. involvement in Syria, reflecting the divide within the Arab-American community about Assad’s regime—some viewing it as a safeguard against extremism, while others condemn his authoritarian rule.
Despite the covert nature of her journey, Gabbard later framed it as a “fact-finding” mission. Even her staff had limited knowledge of her plans prior to her return. While acknowledging her meeting with Assad, Gabbard emphasized the importance of dialogue in pursuit of peace, though her stance that “Assad is not the enemy” of the U.S. sparked considerable backlash. Her disclosures following the trip indicated meetings with Assad and other Syrian officials, where the total engagement lasted for two hours.
Supporters view her endeavors as a pragmatic critique of U.S. foreign policy, cautioning against hastily seeking regime change in Syria, while critics suggest her sentiments mirror Russian propaganda. This connection has fueled accusations of Gabbard being a “Russian asset,” a claim made by former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, inspiring a now-dropped libel suit from Gabbard.
Recent GOP criticisms remain less vocal since her nomination but highlight a desire to understand her discussions with Assad, who has since relocated to Russia. Senator James Lankford, part of the intelligence committee evaluating her nomination, remarked he would need clarity regarding the reasons behind her meeting with the Syrian leader.
In this politically charged environment, Gabbard’s trajectory illustrates her complex relationships across party lines and the fragmented views on U.S. intervention in foreign conflicts, as both allies and opponents await her confirmation hearing.
