Attention has recently shifted to President-elect Donald Trump’s remaining Cabinet nominees following Rep. Matt Gaetz’s (R-Fla.) withdrawal from consideration for the position of attorney general.
Before moving forward with a vote on the potential appointment of former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as director of National Intelligence—a role that involves overseeing the extensive budgets of 18 intelligence agencies and advising the president on national security matters—senators need to rigorously evaluate her public stance on various foreign policy issues, particularly regarding her alignment with Russian media narratives and President Vladimir Putin.
Tulsi 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, deploying to Iraq and Kuwait.
Despite her experience, Gabbard lacks expertise in intelligence assessments and federal administration
She was the first Hindu member of Congress, representing Hawaii as a Democrat from 2013 to 2020, and participated in several key committees, including Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Homeland Security. Gabbard initially supported Bernie Sanders during the 2016 election cycle but left the House in 2020 to pursue an unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
In 2022, Gabbard departed from the Democratic Party, alleging it was under the influence of an “elitist cabal of warmongers.” She endorsed Trump earlier this year and frequently joined him on the campaign trail, signaling a significant shift in her political allegiance. Despite her political experience, Gabbard lacks recognized expertise in the evaluation of intelligence agency assessments and has never held a federal administrative role.
During her time in Congress, she proposed “The Protect Whistleblowers Act” along with two other bills aimed at protecting whistleblowers like Daniel Ellsberg, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden from prosecution for leaking classified information.
Additionally, she advocated for repealing laws permitting surveillance of foreign adversaries, but her initiatives did not gain traction in the House. So far, the Trump transition team has not requested an FBI background check on Gabbard, a process that was previously required by the Senate and could uncover potential conflicts of interest or unethical conduct.
Examples of Gabbard’s foreign policy positions provide insight into her qualifications for the director of National Intelligence role. In 2015, she voiced her opposition to U.S. airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria, arguing that the Assad regime did not pose a direct threat to the U.S. She claimed that although Al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and needed to be defeated, President Obama was not acting effectively against them, while Putin was.
In 2017, Gabbard held a secret meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who had sought military assistance from Russia during the civil war that erupted from an initially peaceful uprising. Gabbard has also expressed skepticism about the evidence surrounding allegations that Assad used chemical weapons against his people.
Departing from the Democratic Party, Gabbard claims it’s influenced by elitist warmongers
Additionally, Gabbard has opposed sanctions on Iran and resisted the labeling of its military leaders as terrorists. She criticized the Trump administration’s drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani in 2020, asserting it violated the Constitution.
In light of NATO’s consideration of Ukraine’s membership, Gabbard has suggested that NATO’s actions contributed to Russia’s invasion in 2022. She defended Russia’s security concerns, opposed sanctions, and criticized the Biden administration for allegedly instigating a “modern-day siege” against Russia, which she claimed was aimed at provoking regime change.
This year, she accused Vice President Kamala Harris of being a “main instigator” of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Gabbard has also promoted misleading narratives from Russian media, such as claims about U.S. funding of biological weapons labs in Ukraine and alleged American involvement in the Nord Stream gas pipeline’s destruction.
In 2021, a significant contributor to Gabbard’s political action committee was identified as a supporter of Putin, who argued that the Russian president was striving to foster international unity despite negative portrayals. A Russian talk show host referred to Gabbard as “our girlfriend” in 2022, while Komsomolskaya Pravda, a pro-Kremlin newspaper, characterized her as an “agent of the Russian state.” A state-controlled television outlet even labeled her as “comrade.”
In 2022, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) criticized Gabbard for disseminating false Russian propaganda, suggesting that her treacherous statements could endanger lives. Recently, Nikki Haley, who served as the U.N. ambassador during Trump’s first administration, denounced Gabbard as a sympathizer of Russian, Iranian, and Chinese interests.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has previously advised his colleagues to respect presidential Cabinet selections unless there is compelling evidence for disqualification, a principle he claims to uphold. However, he has inconsistently applied this standard, having voted against four of Biden’s Cabinet nominations and the Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, while praising Gaetz’s qualifications for attorney general.
Ultimately, senators dedicated to fulfilling their constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent on presidential appointments must have the courage to reject a nominee if “the evidence suggests disqualification,” as appears to be the case with Tulsi Gabbard.
