Will Tulsi Gabbard be the next US spymaster?

Trump’s 2.0 cabinet picks were always going to be a source of intrigue, but none quite like Tulsi Gabbard, his nominee for Director of National Intelligence — it’s a job created after the September 2001 terrorist attacks to drive better intel oversight and coordination.

Views on Gabbard range from American hero to Russian spy to never heard of her. So now that she’s squeaked through a procedural vote and could face her big Senate vote in the new week, it’s worth a quick look at why this one is going down to the wire.

First, your CliffNotes on Tulsi: she’s a former US combat medic who served two tours in the Middle East before representing Hawaii as a Democrat in the US House from 2013. She then ran for president in the 2020 Democratic primaries, endorsed Biden, became an independent in 2022, then endorsed President Trump for the 2024 election and officially joined the Republican Party shortly thereafter.

That’s already a heck of a journey, but it’s not really why she’s attracting so much scrutiny. For that, here are three Gabbard quotes that are now on several senators’ minds: 

1. “Dear Presidents Putin, Zelensky, and Biden. It’s time to put geopolitics aside and embrace the spirit of aloha, respect and love, for the Ukrainian people by coming to an agreement that Ukraine will be a neutral country” 

Gabbard tweeted this in February 2022, and it quickly drew condemnation for a few reasons. First, the timing — this was just days after Russian columns rolled onto Ukraine’s territory and cruise missiles slammed into Ukrainian cities. And it was just days before Russia’s 234th Guards Air Assault Regiment started massacring random Ukrainians in Bucha. Critics note that if there was a lack of aloha, it wasn’t coming from the victims.

Second, the message — critics argue it’s premised on an acceptance of Putin’s purported justification for his war (Ukrainian neutrality). And this arguably exonerates Putin by painting his decision to invade as a war of necessity rather than choice.

And third, the pattern — critics note Gabbard similarly lent credence to Putin’s attempted justifications by arguing that Ukraine “isn’t actually a democracy”, blaming NATO and the US for Putin’s decision to invade (she’s now walked that back), and repeating claims about US-funded biolabs across Ukraine (a presumed reference to public US efforts to reduce the risks posed by the illegal Soviet biological weapons program).

In addressing these past comments, Gabbard cites her own experiences with the horrors of war as now shaping her efforts to pursue peace in the US interest, and has dismissed her critics as “warmongers”.

2. “I have no love for Assad or Gaddafi or any dictator. I just hate al-Qaeda” 

Gabbard made this comment during her Senate hearing, responding to questions from Senators about her past dealings with — and comments on — dictators like Syria’s Assad.

On the dealings, there’s Gabbard’s low-key 2017 trip to Syria, after which it emerged she had met Assad twice in three days. Even her own staffers weren’t fully in the loop. It was a controversial move because by 2017, Assad was a known war criminal and pariah under US sanctions for using chemical weapons and barrel bombs on his own people. So a meeting with a serving member of the US Congress was seen as undermining international efforts to isolate him.

And on the comments front, for example, she questioned whether Assad was really responsible for those chemical attacks (international investigators found he was indeed). By instead suggesting maybe it was al-Qaeda or ISIS, critics argue Gabbard was again lending credence to Putin’s stated justification for propping up Assad’s regime.

For her part, Gabbard has been steadfast in defending her meeting with Assad, arguing dialogue between leaders is crucial for peace. Also, supporters note she joined the military in response to 9/11 and so sees defeating al-Qaeda as an overriding priority.

Trump has brushed it all off too, noting “I met with Putin. I met with President Xi of China. I met with Kim Jong-un twice. Does that mean that I can’t be president?”

3. “Snowden broke the law” 

That’s a pretty non-controversial view for Gabbard to express about Edward Snowden, who did indeed break US law when he walked out of a National Security Agency (NSA) facility in Hawaii with up to 1.7 million classified documents before flying to Hong Kong and then Russia, where he remains today (Putin granted him Russian citizenship in 2022).

The controversy, of course, is that first, Senators didn’t ask Gabbard if he broke the law. Rather, they asked if she thought he was a traitor. And Gabbard declined to answer that question, instead repeating that “Snowden broke the law”.

And second, that gets to Gabbard’s calls to pardon Snowden as a whistle-blower. That’s a whole other rabbit hole, but critics argue that even if you accept Snowden’s whistle-blower characterisation, he could’ve blown that particular whistle by taking a single document to the media, not ~1.7 million documents to Russia (an estimated 50,000-200,000 docs went to journalists).

Anyway, together with Assad, it’s really this Snowden issue that now seems the biggest challenge to her bid to oversee 18 US intelligence agencies with a budget of ~$75B.

So, what’s next? The Senate will likely schedule her final hearing some time next week, and she’ll be confirmed unless ~three Republican senators withhold their support — some have now dropped their opposition, following pressure from VP JD Vance.

INTRIGUE’S TAKE

Well there you have it, folks. In a few days, the next US spymaster could be either:

• a) An American hero and combat veteran who, from her own war experience, is now righteously sceptical of US hawks, war-mongers, and interventionists pushing regime change, forever wars, and unconstitutional surveillance, or…
• b) Someone with zero intelligence experience who’s consistently shown poor judgement or worse in echoing if not sympathising with anti-Western autocratic kleptocrats like Putin and Assad.

That’s quite the flip of the coin, right? And while characterisation a) above has won support among some Americans sceptical and/or tired of US power abroad and overreach at home, option b) has led others to warn that her confirmation could prompt US allies to tap the brakes on intelligence-sharing that helps keep the US safe, particularly via the Five Eyes (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the US).

And yes, there’s some precedent for that. Whether it’s Australia’s delayed entry to the post-WWII agreement over fears of communist influence, or Kissinger pausing exchanges with the UK in the 1970s due to differences in the Middle East, or the fall-out from New Zealand’s decision to start rejecting port visits by nuclear warships in the 1980s. The common thread in each case (and more) is that there was a perceived or real breach of trust. And ultimately, that’s really the basis for intelligence-sharing: trust. 

Also worth noting:

• Gabbard has also faced scrutiny over her ties to the Science of Identity Foundation, which critics describe as a cult. Gabbard cited this in her opening statement, accusing critics of “once again using the religious bigotry card.”
• Senators have also scrutinised Gabbard’s previous attempt to repeal Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which authorises US intelligence agencies to collect intel on non-Americans abroad — it’s helped thwart terrorist attacks, for example. Gabbard says she dropped her opposition after Congress added extra civil liberty protections.