Tulsi Gabbard’s expressed support for national security leakers and her elevation of Russian-backed narratives are coming under renewed scrutiny after President-elect Trump nominated her to the highest intelligence post in the country.
If confirmed as director of national intelligence (DNI), Gabbard would be responsible for wrangling the information collected across all 18 intelligence agencies.
The DNI aids in the creation of the president’s daily intelligence briefing, and Gabbard would play a key role in advising Trump on national security decisions.
“The DNI has access to every single secret that the United States has, every single bit of information that we know… it’s the keys to the intelligence community kingdom,” said Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), a former CIA officer who now sits on the House Intelligence Committee and who described herself as “appalled” by Gabbard’s selection.
Gabbard’s nomination surprised many in the national security world who expressed alarm over has past controversial comments and lack of high-level national security experience.
“What is unusual here is you’ve got somebody who’s had such a long and vociferous track record of saying things that are factually incorrect, that seem to give aid and comfort to U.S. adversaries, and that undermine the very people they should be representing at the principals committee,” said Jamil Jaffer, a former Republican House Intelligence Committee staffer and national security prosecutor.
“That’s what makes her an unlikely candidate to be nominated for this job, and to be an unlikely candidate to be confirmed to this job.”
Gabbard, a four-term Democratic congresswoman who officially became a Republican this year, has at various turns espoused pro-Russia talking points, writing as Ukraine was being invaded that President Biden failed to take into account “Russia’s legitimate security concerns” in trying to head off the war.
She has also praised Edward Snowden, who leaked troves of classified national intelligence material in 2013 and has spent the past decade living in Russia, pushing for Trump to pardon him during his first term in office.
She also secretly met with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, who was accused of using chemical weapons on his own citizens during the country’s civil war. When she ran as a Democrat for president in the 2020 primary, she declined to label the Syrian leader and Russian ally a war criminal.
“Some of the statements she has made through the years that sound like they came right out of the Kremlin’s talking points paper are a little bit alarming. Her cozying up to Bashir al Assad, and being an apologist for him as well just raise questions in my mind, is that really the best person to put in charge of this very complicated, very sensitive operation that is the U.S. intel community,” said Larry Pfeiffer, who previously served as senior director of the White House Situation Room and was chief of staff at the CIA under the George W. Bush administration.
Gabbard has also nodded to disinformation, expressing alarm in 2019 over “U.S.-funded biolabs” in Ukraine she feared could spread “deadly pathogens,” later walking the claim back after saying she was “not convinced” there were biological weapons being developed in the country.
But her comments came as the State Department at the time noted the Kremlin was pushing “outright lies that the United States and Ukraine are conducting chemical and biological weapons activities in Ukraine.”
Her flirtation with disinformation has raised questions both over whether she can be trusted with intelligence and whether allies would continue to share key information with the U.S.
Spanberger noted that throughout her CIA career she had to pledge to sources she would protect their information and identity.
“The core element of concern relates to how much she will or won’t protect our sources and methods, our collected intelligence, our raw intelligence, the people who collect the raw intelligence. And so at its core, I have a concern that she would protect what we produce. And so how could a foreign country not have a concern as to whether she would protect what they produce?” she asked.
“It’s absolutely outrageous. And you know, many of my colleagues are concerned about [Rep.] Matt Gaetz, for obvious reasons,” she added, nodding to the Florida GOP lawmaker Trump on Wednesday said he would nominate as attorney general.
“But in that circumstance, it will be within the public sphere all of the potential ways that he could do egregious damage to the Justice Department. With the DNI, we’ll never even know the scope and depths of damage that a bad choice could make to the intelligence community, to our national security – all of it,” Spanberger said.
Other voices expressed concern over Gabbard’s lack of experience leading large agencies.
“She’s never managed anything larger than a congressional office or maybe like a brigade. That’s a lot different than trying to orchestrate and coordinate this wild consultation of intel elements that we call the U.S. intelligence community. I think she isn’t really prepared for that,” Pfeiffer said.
While Gabbard is a U.S. Army reservist, with a rank of lieutenant colonel, Pfeiffer noted picks to lead the Office of the Director of National Intelligence typically have “spent decades working on these issues.”
One Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee also vented over the pick.
“I think there are 10 other people that are more qualified than her, and I don’t think she has the requisite background or experience for the job. So I think she’s going to have real trouble in the Senate and I don’t know what qualifies her to be DNI,” the Republican said.
“She served what? As a police officer in the National Guard? That’s it. I mean, just look at the lack of qualifications. I don’t think she’s ever had an intelligence briefing. I don’t think she understands 702, or [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act],” the lawmaker said, noting the section of the law that covers foreign intelligence collection.
Still, figures on both sides of the aisle have expressed support for Trump’s pick.
Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said with her military background “she understands the threats as well as anybody.”
And Obama-era Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said skepticism of intelligence can “be a good thing.”
“I’m going to surprise you a little bit. I don’t think that it is an absolute prerequisite that the Director of National Intelligence be someone of the intelligence community. I also believe that on occasion it’s a good thing to be skeptical of the intelligence that we’re provided,” he said during a Thursday appearance on CNN.
But Spanberger urged her Senate counterparts to be wary of advancing Gabbard.
“Anybody who serves on the [Senate Intelligence COmmittee] cannot, in good conscience, vote for her,” she said.
“They just – they can’t. They can’t.”
Al Weaver contributed to this story.
