A contentious nomination hearing prompts further inquiries about Gabbard
Tulsi Gabbard’s stance on Edward Snowden, specifically her unwillingness to label him a traitor, has raised new worries among political figures from both parties.
TroibNews 
President Donald Trump’s nominee for director of national intelligence faced intense questioning from Democrats during her nomination hearing on Thursday, with some Republicans also expressing skepticism.
Tulsi Gabbard arrived equipped for the scrutiny and quickly took an assertive stance.
She pledged to eliminate what she termed political bias within the intelligence community and labeled criticisms of her past as “lies and smears.”
Gabbard is seen as Trump’s most vulnerable Cabinet nominee at this stage, and her confirmation may depend heavily on how she performs at the hearing. She is unlikely to gain support from any Democrats on the intelligence committee, and at least two Republicans might also vote against her.
Sen. Mark Warner stated in his opening remarks that he believes Gabbard may lack the necessary qualifications to serve as director of national intelligence, suggesting that her appointment could breach the foundational law for the position.
He referenced the requirement for the nominee to possess “extensive national security expertise,” expressing his “significant concerns about your judgment and your qualifications to meet the standard set by the law.”
Although Gabbard lacks formal experience in the U.S. intelligence community, she is an Iraq war veteran and has over two decades of military service, having also been a member of the House Armed Services Committee while in Congress. If confirmed, she would oversee more than a dozen U.S. intelligence agencies and manage approximately $100 billion in intelligence programs.
In contrast, Republicans at the hearing depicted Gabbard as a patriot whose distinctive foreign policy views have been mischaracterized by Democrats and the media as indicators of foreign influence. In the past, Gabbard has reiterated misleading Kremlin narratives regarding U.S. bioweapons labs in Ukraine, attributed blame to NATO for Russia’s actions, and questioned U.S. intelligence findings about chemical weapon usage in Syria.
Senate Intelligence Chair Tom Cotton acknowledged Gabbard’s “unconventional views,” but portrayed her as an independent thinker capable of challenging the mainstream foreign policy perspectives that have led to conflicts abroad. “Maybe Washington could use a little more unconventional thinking,” he said.
In her opening statement, Gabbard criticized numerous failures within the U.S. intelligence community, including the investigation into Trump’s connections to Russia during the 2016 election, the intelligence that prompted the Iraq war, and the letter from 51 former intelligence officials contending that Hunter Biden’s laptop was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
“What truly unsettles my political opponents is I refuse to be their puppet,” she remarked.
However, several lawmakers expressed their concerns about more tangible issues.
An especially contentious moment arose when Gabbard declined to label former NSA contractor Edward Snowden a traitor, prompting a barrage of questions from both Republican and Democratic members of the panel.
After she avoided providing a clear response on Snowden when questioned by Sens. James Lankford and Michael Bennet, a normally reserved Bennet sharply criticized her. “Is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America?” Bennet exclaimed, his tone escalating. “That is not a hard question to answer when the stakes are this high.”
Just minutes later, following a series of criticisms aimed at Gabbard regarding her comments on Snowden and her assertion that Ukraine played a role in Russia’s invasion, Bennet pressed her further. “The record is going to be very clear about the position you took with regard to Edward Snowden and the record is going to be very clear about your reaffirmation of the statements you made in the middle of the night when Russia was invading the free country of Ukraine,” he stated, referencing her social media post suggesting NATO was partly responsible for the invasion.
Sen. Todd Young, another potential Republican “no” vote, conveyed his discomfort with Gabbard’s responses on the Snowden issue. “I think it would befit you and be helpful to the way you are perceived by members of the intelligence community, if you would at least acknowledge that the greatest whistleblower in American history, so-called, harmed national security by breaking the laws of the land around our intel authority,” he advised.
Additionally, Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, who has remained silent on his stance regarding Gabbard, emphasized that he wanted to ensure Russia would not “get a pass in either your mind or your heart” in any decisions she would make as DNI.
“Senator, I’m offended by the question,” Gabbard retorted. “If confirmed, no country, group or individual will get a pass.”
A critical point of contention for both Democrats and Republicans was Gabbard’s perspective on a contentious surveillance authority known as Section 702, which many on the intelligence panel consider an essential intelligence tool. Gabbard, previously a proponent of privacy rights, had opposed the law— which permits surveillance of foreign communications— due to its potential to target American citizens' communications. However, she shifted her position after discussions with committee members supportive of the law.
Under questioning, Gabbard appeared to give inconsistent answers regarding her support for the law and whether she favored additional privacy safeguards, which received mixed reactions from the committee members.
“You said the reforms now make you supportive. What can you cite, which reforms?” Warner pressed her at one point.
For Sen. Ron Wyden, a prominent advocate for privacy, Gabbard’s willingness to contemplate reforming Section 702 to better safeguard Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights led to one of her more favorable interactions with a panel Democrat. “You are being very helpful by moving so quickly,” Wyden replied following her answer.
A significant topic surrounding Gabbard’s nomination was her 2017 visit to meet with the then recently ousted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. She defended the secret meeting by stating it was conducted transparently with U.S. officials and aimed to foster a faster resolution to Syria's civil conflict. However, during the hearing, she disclosed for the first time that the meeting did not result in any concessions. “No, and I didn’t expect to,” she stated.
She vigorously denied ever engaging with senior Hezbollah fighters during that trip, describing the claim as an “absurd accusation.”
When questioned by Sen. Martin Heinrich about the war in Ukraine, Gabbard clearly assigned blame: “Putin started the war in Ukraine,” she asserted.
Gabbard did manage to have some memorable exchanges, including cleverly countering skepticism about her relations with Assad by saying, “I shed no tears for the fall of the Assad regime,” in response to questions from Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly. “But today we have an Islamist extremist who is now in charge of Syria, as I said, who danced on the streets to celebrate the 911 attack.”
Along with Young, Sen. Susan Collins is seen as a potential dissenting vote regarding Gabbard's nomination but did not reveal her stance during the hearing, despite asking less pointed questions.
In the aftermath of the hearing, it appears Gabbard’s chances for confirmation may largely depend on her policy viewpoints rather than her prior actions or lack of experience.
Cotton remarked at the start of the hearing that Gabbard had undergone five FBI background checks and he had spent two hours reviewing over 300 pages of findings. “It’s clean as a whistle,” he said.
Sophie Wagner contributed to this report for TROIB News
Tulsi Gabbard arrived equipped for the scrutiny and quickly took an assertive stance.
She pledged to eliminate what she termed political bias within the intelligence community and labeled criticisms of her past as “lies and smears.”
Gabbard is seen as Trump’s most vulnerable Cabinet nominee at this stage, and her confirmation may depend heavily on how she performs at the hearing. She is unlikely to gain support from any Democrats on the intelligence committee, and at least two Republicans might also vote against her.
Sen. Mark Warner stated in his opening remarks that he believes Gabbard may lack the necessary qualifications to serve as director of national intelligence, suggesting that her appointment could breach the foundational law for the position.
He referenced the requirement for the nominee to possess “extensive national security expertise,” expressing his “significant concerns about your judgment and your qualifications to meet the standard set by the law.”
Although Gabbard lacks formal experience in the U.S. intelligence community, she is an Iraq war veteran and has over two decades of military service, having also been a member of the House Armed Services Committee while in Congress. If confirmed, she would oversee more than a dozen U.S. intelligence agencies and manage approximately $100 billion in intelligence programs.
In contrast, Republicans at the hearing depicted Gabbard as a patriot whose distinctive foreign policy views have been mischaracterized by Democrats and the media as indicators of foreign influence. In the past, Gabbard has reiterated misleading Kremlin narratives regarding U.S. bioweapons labs in Ukraine, attributed blame to NATO for Russia’s actions, and questioned U.S. intelligence findings about chemical weapon usage in Syria.
Senate Intelligence Chair Tom Cotton acknowledged Gabbard’s “unconventional views,” but portrayed her as an independent thinker capable of challenging the mainstream foreign policy perspectives that have led to conflicts abroad. “Maybe Washington could use a little more unconventional thinking,” he said.
In her opening statement, Gabbard criticized numerous failures within the U.S. intelligence community, including the investigation into Trump’s connections to Russia during the 2016 election, the intelligence that prompted the Iraq war, and the letter from 51 former intelligence officials contending that Hunter Biden’s laptop was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
“What truly unsettles my political opponents is I refuse to be their puppet,” she remarked.
However, several lawmakers expressed their concerns about more tangible issues.
An especially contentious moment arose when Gabbard declined to label former NSA contractor Edward Snowden a traitor, prompting a barrage of questions from both Republican and Democratic members of the panel.
After she avoided providing a clear response on Snowden when questioned by Sens. James Lankford and Michael Bennet, a normally reserved Bennet sharply criticized her. “Is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America?” Bennet exclaimed, his tone escalating. “That is not a hard question to answer when the stakes are this high.”
Just minutes later, following a series of criticisms aimed at Gabbard regarding her comments on Snowden and her assertion that Ukraine played a role in Russia’s invasion, Bennet pressed her further. “The record is going to be very clear about the position you took with regard to Edward Snowden and the record is going to be very clear about your reaffirmation of the statements you made in the middle of the night when Russia was invading the free country of Ukraine,” he stated, referencing her social media post suggesting NATO was partly responsible for the invasion.
Sen. Todd Young, another potential Republican “no” vote, conveyed his discomfort with Gabbard’s responses on the Snowden issue. “I think it would befit you and be helpful to the way you are perceived by members of the intelligence community, if you would at least acknowledge that the greatest whistleblower in American history, so-called, harmed national security by breaking the laws of the land around our intel authority,” he advised.
Additionally, Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, who has remained silent on his stance regarding Gabbard, emphasized that he wanted to ensure Russia would not “get a pass in either your mind or your heart” in any decisions she would make as DNI.
“Senator, I’m offended by the question,” Gabbard retorted. “If confirmed, no country, group or individual will get a pass.”
A critical point of contention for both Democrats and Republicans was Gabbard’s perspective on a contentious surveillance authority known as Section 702, which many on the intelligence panel consider an essential intelligence tool. Gabbard, previously a proponent of privacy rights, had opposed the law— which permits surveillance of foreign communications— due to its potential to target American citizens' communications. However, she shifted her position after discussions with committee members supportive of the law.
Under questioning, Gabbard appeared to give inconsistent answers regarding her support for the law and whether she favored additional privacy safeguards, which received mixed reactions from the committee members.
“You said the reforms now make you supportive. What can you cite, which reforms?” Warner pressed her at one point.
For Sen. Ron Wyden, a prominent advocate for privacy, Gabbard’s willingness to contemplate reforming Section 702 to better safeguard Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights led to one of her more favorable interactions with a panel Democrat. “You are being very helpful by moving so quickly,” Wyden replied following her answer.
A significant topic surrounding Gabbard’s nomination was her 2017 visit to meet with the then recently ousted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. She defended the secret meeting by stating it was conducted transparently with U.S. officials and aimed to foster a faster resolution to Syria's civil conflict. However, during the hearing, she disclosed for the first time that the meeting did not result in any concessions. “No, and I didn’t expect to,” she stated.
She vigorously denied ever engaging with senior Hezbollah fighters during that trip, describing the claim as an “absurd accusation.”
When questioned by Sen. Martin Heinrich about the war in Ukraine, Gabbard clearly assigned blame: “Putin started the war in Ukraine,” she asserted.
Gabbard did manage to have some memorable exchanges, including cleverly countering skepticism about her relations with Assad by saying, “I shed no tears for the fall of the Assad regime,” in response to questions from Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly. “But today we have an Islamist extremist who is now in charge of Syria, as I said, who danced on the streets to celebrate the 911 attack.”
Along with Young, Sen. Susan Collins is seen as a potential dissenting vote regarding Gabbard's nomination but did not reveal her stance during the hearing, despite asking less pointed questions.
In the aftermath of the hearing, it appears Gabbard’s chances for confirmation may largely depend on her policy viewpoints rather than her prior actions or lack of experience.
Cotton remarked at the start of the hearing that Gabbard had undergone five FBI background checks and he had spent two hours reviewing over 300 pages of findings. “It’s clean as a whistle,” he said.
Sophie Wagner contributed to this report for TROIB News
