Attention has recently turned to President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees for Cabinet-level positions following Rep. Matt Gaetz’s withdrawal from consideration for attorney general. As the Senate prepares to evaluate former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s potential appointment as director of National Intelligence, it is essential that they pose challenging questions regarding her stance on various foreign policy issues, particularly her alignment with Russian media narratives and President Vladimir Putin.
Gabbard’s background includes being born in American Samoa and raised in Hawaii, where she served as an officer in the National Guard and Army Reserves before being deployed to Iraq and Kuwait. From 2013 to 2020, she represented Hawaii in the House of Representatives as a Democrat, making history as the first Hindu member of Congress. During her tenure, she was involved in the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Homeland Security committees. After supporting Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election, Gabbard left the House in 2020 to pursue an unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
In 2022, she departed from the Democratic Party, asserting it was “under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers.” This year, Gabbard endorsed Trump and frequently joined him on the campaign trail.
However, Gabbard lacks demonstrated expertise in assessing the methodologies and evaluations conducted by intelligence professionals, nor has she held any administrative positions within the federal government. While in Congress, she introduced legislation aimed at protecting whistleblowers, such as “The Protect Whistleblowers Act,” which sought to safeguard individuals like Daniel Ellsberg, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden from prosecution for leaking classified information. Despite her efforts, these proposals did not gain traction.
Currently, the Trump transition team has not requested an FBI background check on Gabbard or any other nominee, a step previously required by the Senate, which could potentially uncover unethical behavior or conflicts of interest.
Gabbard’s foreign policy positions provide crucial insights into her qualifications for the role of director of National Intelligence. In 2015, she opposed U.S. airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria under the Obama administration, claiming that the Assad regime “does not pose a direct threat to the United States.” At the same time, she emphasized the need to defeat Al-Qaeda, which she claimed was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, criticizing Obama for not taking action against them in Syria while pointing out that Putin had done so.
Her controversial meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in 2017 raised further questions about her stance, particularly as she has expressed skepticism about evidence of Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his citizens.
Gabbard has also criticized sanctions against Iran and the labeling of Iranian military officers as terrorists. In 2020, she condemned the Trump administration’s drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, arguing it violated the Constitution.
While NATO members considered Ukraine’s inclusion in the alliance, Gabbard attributed part of the blame for Russia’s 2022 invasion to this initiative. She defended Russia’s “legitimate security concerns” and condemned sanctions against the country, accusing the Biden administration of isolating and damaging Russia’s economy.
Earlier this year, she claimed that Vice President Kamala Harris was the “main instigator” of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Additionally, Gabbard has perpetuated false claims that the U.S. funds biological weapons labs in Ukraine, suggesting that this facilitates the release of harmful pathogens, and she has misrepresented American involvement in the Nord Stream gas pipeline’s destruction.
Gabbard’s political action committee saw substantial contributions from individuals sympathetic to Putin, including a prominent Putin apologist who praised him for his efforts to foster connections between nations. In 2022, a Russian talk show host referred to her as “our girlfriend,” and a Kremlin-backed newspaper labeled her as “an agent of the Russian state.”
Criticism of Gabbard has emerged from various political figures, including Sen. Mitt Romney, who accused her of disseminating false Russian propaganda that could endanger lives. Recently, Nikki Haley, former U.N. ambassador during Trump’s first administration, condemned her as a “Russian, Iranian, Chinese sympathizer.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham has suggested that colleagues should typically defer to presidential Cabinet selections unless there is substantial evidence of disqualification. However, his past voting patterns indicate a lack of consistency in this approach, as he has previously opposed several of Biden’s nominees while praising Gaetz’s qualifications.
Despite these complexities, senators must uphold their constitutional responsibility to evaluate presidential appointees seriously. When evidence suggests disqualification, as appears to be the case with Tulsi Gabbard, they should possess the courage to reject her nomination.
