At 6:30 a.m., as children were beginning their morning routines before school, a rocket struck, followed by an unusual smell. Within moments, dozens of people, including two infant twins, fell to the ground, convulsing, foaming at the mouth, and eventually succumbing to choking death.
The chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun sent shockwaves around the globe, prompting an immediate response from the U.S. In 2017, then-President Trump ordered airstrikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad, holding him responsible for the atrocity.
Tulsi Gabbard, who has been nominated by Trump to serve as director of national intelligence, had visited Damascus only a few weeks before the attack, where she held secret meetings with Assad. Following the visit, Gabbard controversially stated that Assad was “not the enemy of the United States.”
Gabbard’s support for Russian actions in Syria ignites criticism from political opponents
Among the various Cabinet nominations announced this week, Gabbard’s selection stands out as particularly dangerous to U.S. national security. While there has been backlash regarding the nominations of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense and Rep. Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, Gabbard’s nomination poses the greatest risk. Her longstanding ties to the Syrian regime and her contentious foreign policy views deserve close scrutiny from the Senate.
Gabbard’s ties to the Assad regime became more widely known after a 2019 public dispute with Hillary Clinton, who accused Gabbard of being a “favorite of the Russians” during her 2020 presidential campaign. However, for many Syrian Americans, Gabbard’s stance on Syria has raised serious concerns for nearly a decade, and these concerns should be carefully considered by the Senate as they decide her confirmation.
In her first year in Congress, Gabbard wrote an op-ed in 2013 opposing U.S. military intervention in Syria after the Ghouta chemical attack. While she condemned Assad’s actions as “morally reprehensible,” she voiced concerns about the potential consequences of military involvement, a position shared by many at the time due to President Obama’s threatened “red line” on Syria’s chemical weapons use.
However, by 2015, Gabbard’s views became increasingly isolated. She openly supported Russian military actions in Syria and even questioned why the U.S. couldn’t partner with Russia to combat terrorism.
In reality, Russia’s involvement in Syria was far from benign—it was part of a coordinated effort with Assad’s forces to terrorize civilians, including a brutal campaign against medical facilities that left over 300 hospitals destroyed by the end of 2015.
As an outspoken anti-interventionist, Gabbard continued to advocate for an end to U.S. support for efforts to overthrow Assad. She introduced legislation to block aid to the Syrian opposition in 2016, earning her the attention of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party—a far-right, pro-Assad group with a history of antisemitism.
The group later arranged for Gabbard to visit Damascus, where she met Assad just weeks before the Khan Shaykhun attack. After the U.S. retaliatory strikes, Gabbard called the actions “rash” and “unconstitutional.”
Since then, Gabbard has only intensified her pro-Assad rhetoric, even suggesting that the chemical attacks, including the one at Khan Shaykhun, were fabricated by the Syrian opposition.
Gabbard’s troubling relationships with authoritarian regimes extend beyond Syria. She has expressed support for Russia’s stance in Ukraine and accused Trump of provoking Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.
For Senate Republicans, Gabbard’s nomination represents a threat to national security. Her history of advocacy for Assad and authoritarian regimes raises serious questions about her ability to lead the nation’s intelligence efforts, an area where such views would normally disqualify someone from holding a security clearance.
As the cornerstone of America’s defense apparatus, the intelligence community must be protected from individuals whose allegiances and rhetoric undermine its integrity. It is the Senate’s duty to ensure that only those who truly prioritize national security are entrusted with its leadership.
