Tulsi Gabbard Faces Scrutiny Over Intelligence Appointment

Tulsi Gabbard Faces Scrutiny Over Intelligence Appointment \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Nearly 100 former U.S. diplomats and national security officials have called for closed Senate hearings to evaluate Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination as national intelligence director. They expressed concerns over her controversial past actions, including a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad and statements aligned with Russian narratives. Gabbard’s team dismissed the criticisms as partisan attacks, intensifying the debate over her qualifications.

Controversy Over Tulsi Gabbard’s Nomination: Quick Looks

• High-Level Concerns: Nearly 100 bipartisan officials question Gabbard’s ability to lead intelligence.
• Past Actions Scrutinized: Focus on her meeting with Assad and Russian-aligned statements.
• Closed Hearings Requested: Officials demand classified Senate review of her qualifications.
• Defense from Gabbard’s Team: Criticism called partisan and baseless by Trump transition team.
• Security Risks Highlighted: Concerns about safeguarding intelligence sources and national security.

Deep Look

The nomination of former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard to serve as director of national intelligence has sparked significant controversy, with nearly 100 former senior U.S. diplomats, intelligence officials, and national security leaders urging Senate leaders to hold closed-door hearings. These officials, who served under both Democratic and Republican administrations, raised alarm over Gabbard’s qualifications, citing her past actions and public statements as potentially detrimental to U.S. national security.

Concerns About Gabbard’s Background

In a letter addressed to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and incoming Republican Majority Leader John Thune, the former officials emphasized the need for a thorough review of Gabbard’s history and its implications for the nation’s intelligence apparatus. They underscored the importance of examining classified information during the Senate’s confirmation process to ensure she is fit to oversee the country’s 18 intelligence agencies.

The letter points to Gabbard’s 2017 visit to Syria, during which she met with President Bashar Assad. The meeting with Assad, a leader accused of war crimes and backed by Russian and Iranian forces, drew sharp criticism at the time and remains a focal point of opposition to her nomination. The U.S. government has long opposed Assad’s regime, cutting diplomatic ties and imposing sanctions over his conduct in Syria’s ongoing civil war.

Critics argue that Gabbard’s decision to meet with Assad undermines U.S. policy and demonstrates poor judgment. Gabbard, however, defended the trip as an effort to engage directly with adversaries, a stance she has maintained throughout her political career.

Alignment with Russian Narratives

The letter also highlights Gabbard’s public statements on U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding the Middle East and Ukraine. The signatories contend that her views have at times aligned with Russian talking points, diverging sharply from official U.S. positions. These remarks, they argue, cast doubt on her ability to deliver impartial intelligence briefings to the President and Congress.

Throughout her career, Gabbard has championed a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy, advocating for limiting U.S. military engagements abroad except in cases involving Islamic extremism. While her views resonate with certain political factions, critics see them as overly sympathetic to authoritarian regimes and inconsistent with U.S. strategic interests.

Domestic Surveillance and Political Allegations

Adding to the controversy, Gabbard has claimed that she was placed on a secret U.S. terror watch list, alleging political retaliation. She described the designation as labeling her a “potential domestic terror threat,” though neither she nor U.S. authorities have disclosed the specifics of the situation.

The former officials emphasized that such allegations, coupled with Gabbard’s history of controversial actions and statements, raise serious questions about her trustworthiness and ability to protect sensitive intelligence.

Trump Transition Team Defends Gabbard

Alexa Henning, a spokesperson for Gabbard on the Trump transition team, dismissed the criticisms as politically motivated. “These unfounded attacks are from the same geniuses who have blood on their hands from decades of faulty ‘intelligence,’” Henning said, accusing the signatories of weaponizing classified information for partisan purposes.

Henning argued that Gabbard’s willingness to challenge entrenched norms in the intelligence community made her an ideal candidate for the role. She characterized the letter as an example of resistance from the “establishment” to reform and accountability.

Call for Closed-Door Senate Hearings

The letter’s signatories urged Senate leaders to convene closed sessions to review all available information about Gabbard’s qualifications and her potential impact on national security. They stressed the importance of ensuring that the intelligence community remains nonpartisan and focused on protecting U.S. interests.

“Senate committees must consider in closed sessions all information available to the U.S. government when evaluating Ms. Gabbard’s qualifications to manage our intelligence agencies and, more importantly, safeguard our intelligence sources and methods,” the letter reads.

Broader Concerns and Implications

Gabbard’s nomination comes amid heightened tensions over the politicization of intelligence under President-elect Donald Trump. Her selection reflects Trump’s preference for unconventional appointments, but it has also reignited bipartisan concerns about the future of the intelligence community.

Her critics worry that her past actions and statements could compromise the credibility and effectiveness of U.S. intelligence agencies. Meanwhile, her defenders see her nomination as an opportunity to challenge what they perceive as entrenched biases and inefficiencies within the system.

Looking Ahead

As the Senate prepares for Gabbard’s confirmation process, her nomination is likely to face intense scrutiny. Closed-door hearings, if granted, could shed light on classified aspects of her record and address lingering concerns about her suitability for the role.

Regardless of the outcome, the debate over Gabbard’s appointment underscores the broader challenges of ensuring that intelligence leadership remains both impartial and effective in a polarized political climate.

More on Elections

Tulsi Gabbard Faces Tulsi Gabbard Faces