Gabbard Expected the 'Pete Hegseth Hearing' Experience. It Wasn't What She Received.
Gabbard's approach during her confirmation hearing on Thursday didn’t receive the same level of acclaim from Republicans as other Trump nominees have in the past.
TroibNews 
Tulsi Gabbard, who has been nominated by Donald Trump to serve as the director of national intelligence, entered her nomination hearing on Thursday prepared to face a barrage of criticism from Democrats. However, it wasn't just the opposition party that posed tough inquiries.
Several Republican members expressed doubts about Gabbard’s responses concerning NSA contractor Edward Snowden and a contentious surveillance program. They also questioned her previous remarks on Russia, Syria, and Ukraine. This was a stark contrast to the recent confirmation hearing of now-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth two weeks prior, where Republicans offered strong support and defended him against Democratic criticisms.
While no Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee overtly indicated they were reconsidering their support for the former Democratic representative, there was a palpable absence of enthusiasm. Senators such as James Lankford, Todd Young, Jerry Moran, John Cornyn, and Susan Collins scrutinized Gabbard’s positions during the hearing.
This lack of fervor is challenging for Gabbard, particularly since Senate Republicans have maintained that she needed a robust performance to secure her nomination. With the Senate Intelligence Committee divided 9-8 along party lines, Gabbard is not expected to garner any support from Democrats.
Young, one of three panel members previously identified as a potential “no” vote on Gabbard, delivered one of the more pointed critiques. This occurred after she avoided a series of inquiries regarding her view of Snowden as a traitor. “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 stated.
The senators emphasized that Snowden had leaked vast amounts of sensitive U.S. intelligence, jeopardizing the lives of American operatives before fleeing first to Hong Kong and then to Russia, yet Gabbard remained noncommittal. She acknowledged that Snowden had broken the law but stopped short of making any further judgments.
Since her unexpected nomination two months ago, Gabbard has been under scrutiny not only from Democrats but also from certain Republicans regarding her judgment, dovish foreign policy stances, and her lack of direct experience within U.S. intelligence agencies.
With two decades of military service, including as an Iraq war veteran and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Gabbard has nonetheless never worked at a U.S. spy agency. Her nomination has been further complicated by past comments that seemed to align with Kremlin narratives on NATO and the war in Ukraine, as well as her controversial 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and her skepticism regarding U.S. claims about Assad's use of chemical weapons.
From the outset, Gabbard adopted a defiant tone. In her opening statement, she characterized many allegations against her as “lies and smears” and listed significant failures within the U.S. intelligence community. As she recounted various controversies, including the investigation into Trump’s connections to Russia and the issues surrounding NSA surveillance programs, she maintained her composure even when faced with challenging questions.
Gabbard attempted to frame her unconventional foreign policy views as necessary for bringing about reforms to the intelligence community, which she described as biased and ineffective. Sen. Tom Cotton, the intelligence committee chair, was one of the Republicans who endorsed her unconventional approach, stating, “Look where conventional thinking has gotten us,” and linking that thinking to failed military engagements in the Middle East during the Obama administration.
However, Gabbard encountered several tough moments during exchanges with other Republicans. Lankford, who expressed he would likely vote for her, along with Cornyn and Moran, pressed her on her position concerning Snowden. Moran specifically voiced the need for assurance that Russia would not receive leniency in her assessments if she were confirmed as DNI. Gabbard replied, “Senator, I’m offended by the question,” affirming that “no country or group or individual will get a pass.”
Lankford expressed impatience with her evasions regarding Snowden, stating, “This is a big deal to everybody here, because it's a big deal to everybody you'll also oversee. So, was Edward Snowden a traitor?” Collins and Young also sought clarification on that issue, with Young referring to a post from Snowden on social media that encouraged Gabbard to "disown all prior support for whistleblowers as a condition of confirmation."
The Senate Intelligence Committee is typically more bipartisan than other legislative bodies, with both parties sharing a hawkish approach toward foreign policy and governmental surveillance. Votes in the committee generally take place behind closed doors.
Cornyn pushed Gabbard for a clearer stance on the contentious Section 702 surveillance authority, which pertains to foreign communication but also collects data on Americans. Gabbard, who previously opposed Section 702 as a privacy advocate during her congressional tenure, has recently shifted her position to support it. However, Cornyn sought to clarify whether she believed the law should be altered to better protect Americans' privacy — a point that many security advocates find unnecessary, believing such changes could undermine their most robust intelligence tools.
Time ran out before Cornyn received a definitive answer.
Following the open hearing, Gabbard and the senators entered a closed session to discuss classified matters. The outcomes of this private meeting could significantly influence the committee's upcoming vote on her nomination.
Afterwards, Senator Collins indicated that she had not yet made up her mind on her vote, while Moran avoided committing, and Young did not respond to questions as he exited the classified session.
Should Gabbard fail to secure the committee’s majority support, alternative pathways exist for bringing her confirmation to the Senate floor, though such measures are uncommon and could jeopardize her chances with those beyond the committee.
Contributions to this report were made by Maggie Miller, Jordain Carney, Joe Gould, and Eric Bazail-Eimil.
Ian Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
Several Republican members expressed doubts about Gabbard’s responses concerning NSA contractor Edward Snowden and a contentious surveillance program. They also questioned her previous remarks on Russia, Syria, and Ukraine. This was a stark contrast to the recent confirmation hearing of now-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth two weeks prior, where Republicans offered strong support and defended him against Democratic criticisms.
While no Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee overtly indicated they were reconsidering their support for the former Democratic representative, there was a palpable absence of enthusiasm. Senators such as James Lankford, Todd Young, Jerry Moran, John Cornyn, and Susan Collins scrutinized Gabbard’s positions during the hearing.
This lack of fervor is challenging for Gabbard, particularly since Senate Republicans have maintained that she needed a robust performance to secure her nomination. With the Senate Intelligence Committee divided 9-8 along party lines, Gabbard is not expected to garner any support from Democrats.
Young, one of three panel members previously identified as a potential “no” vote on Gabbard, delivered one of the more pointed critiques. This occurred after she avoided a series of inquiries regarding her view of Snowden as a traitor. “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 stated.
The senators emphasized that Snowden had leaked vast amounts of sensitive U.S. intelligence, jeopardizing the lives of American operatives before fleeing first to Hong Kong and then to Russia, yet Gabbard remained noncommittal. She acknowledged that Snowden had broken the law but stopped short of making any further judgments.
Since her unexpected nomination two months ago, Gabbard has been under scrutiny not only from Democrats but also from certain Republicans regarding her judgment, dovish foreign policy stances, and her lack of direct experience within U.S. intelligence agencies.
With two decades of military service, including as an Iraq war veteran and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Gabbard has nonetheless never worked at a U.S. spy agency. Her nomination has been further complicated by past comments that seemed to align with Kremlin narratives on NATO and the war in Ukraine, as well as her controversial 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and her skepticism regarding U.S. claims about Assad's use of chemical weapons.
From the outset, Gabbard adopted a defiant tone. In her opening statement, she characterized many allegations against her as “lies and smears” and listed significant failures within the U.S. intelligence community. As she recounted various controversies, including the investigation into Trump’s connections to Russia and the issues surrounding NSA surveillance programs, she maintained her composure even when faced with challenging questions.
Gabbard attempted to frame her unconventional foreign policy views as necessary for bringing about reforms to the intelligence community, which she described as biased and ineffective. Sen. Tom Cotton, the intelligence committee chair, was one of the Republicans who endorsed her unconventional approach, stating, “Look where conventional thinking has gotten us,” and linking that thinking to failed military engagements in the Middle East during the Obama administration.
However, Gabbard encountered several tough moments during exchanges with other Republicans. Lankford, who expressed he would likely vote for her, along with Cornyn and Moran, pressed her on her position concerning Snowden. Moran specifically voiced the need for assurance that Russia would not receive leniency in her assessments if she were confirmed as DNI. Gabbard replied, “Senator, I’m offended by the question,” affirming that “no country or group or individual will get a pass.”
Lankford expressed impatience with her evasions regarding Snowden, stating, “This is a big deal to everybody here, because it's a big deal to everybody you'll also oversee. So, was Edward Snowden a traitor?” Collins and Young also sought clarification on that issue, with Young referring to a post from Snowden on social media that encouraged Gabbard to "disown all prior support for whistleblowers as a condition of confirmation."
The Senate Intelligence Committee is typically more bipartisan than other legislative bodies, with both parties sharing a hawkish approach toward foreign policy and governmental surveillance. Votes in the committee generally take place behind closed doors.
Cornyn pushed Gabbard for a clearer stance on the contentious Section 702 surveillance authority, which pertains to foreign communication but also collects data on Americans. Gabbard, who previously opposed Section 702 as a privacy advocate during her congressional tenure, has recently shifted her position to support it. However, Cornyn sought to clarify whether she believed the law should be altered to better protect Americans' privacy — a point that many security advocates find unnecessary, believing such changes could undermine their most robust intelligence tools.
Time ran out before Cornyn received a definitive answer.
Following the open hearing, Gabbard and the senators entered a closed session to discuss classified matters. The outcomes of this private meeting could significantly influence the committee's upcoming vote on her nomination.
Afterwards, Senator Collins indicated that she had not yet made up her mind on her vote, while Moran avoided committing, and Young did not respond to questions as he exited the classified session.
Should Gabbard fail to secure the committee’s majority support, alternative pathways exist for bringing her confirmation to the Senate floor, though such measures are uncommon and could jeopardize her chances with those beyond the committee.
Contributions to this report were made by Maggie Miller, Jordain Carney, Joe Gould, and Eric Bazail-Eimil.
Ian Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
