Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump’s choice to serve as the director of national intelligence, has perhaps the most difficult path to confirmation of any of the White House cabinet picks.
Ms. Gabbard, a former Democrat who has transformed herself into one of Mr. Trump’s fiercest foreign policy defenders, has taken a range of stances that appeal to the president but are at odds with the foreign policy establishment in both parties.
Those differences were apparent on Thursday. The examination from Republicans was polite, but she faced some of the toughest questioning from Mr. Trump’s party members of any of his nominees so far.
A committee will vote in the coming days on whether to advance her nomination to a vote of the full chamber. Here are four takeaways from the hearing.
One man unites both parties: Edward Snowden.
It was apparent before the hearing that Edward Snowden, a former national security contractor who released reams of classified data in 2013, would be a focus of lawmakers’ questions, but it was surprising that he dominated so much of the hearing.
Republicans and Democrats repeatedly asked Ms. Gabbard to call him a traitor. She refused.
The debate over Mr. Snowden is an important one, if only because it highlights a policy difference between Ms. Gabbard and most of the intelligence committee. Ms. Gabbard is concerned with privacy and overly intrusive intelligence collection. She said the programs that Mr. Snowden exposed were “egregious, illegal and unconstitutional.”
None of the lawmakers defended the bulk data collection of Americans’ phone records by the N.S.A., but most did defend the mass collection of foreign communications without a warrant that is allowed under Section 702. Ms. Gabbard, like Mr. Trump, has questioned the law that authorizes that collection. She reversed her position before the hearing, but her support seemed tepid.
Gabbard claims vindication on Syria.
While Ms. Gabbard, however halfheartedly, tempered her views on Mr. Snowden, she did not back down on her views on Syria. Ms. Gabbard has long been criticized for her meeting with Bashar al-Assad, the former Syrian dictator, and her support of his government.
Ms. Gabbard has argued that Mr. Assad’s government, however awful its human rights record, was the best chance to prevent terrorist groups from gaining more power in Syria. On Thursday, Ms. Gabbard testified that her critique of U.S. policy on Syria had been validated by Mr. Assad’s fall from power and the takeover by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a former affiliate of Al Qaeda that broke with the older group years ago.
“Syria is now controlled by an Al Qaeda offshoot, led by an Islamist jihadist who danced in the streets on 9/11, and who is responsible for the killing of many American service members,” Ms. Gabbard said.
Lawmakers did not challenge her directly on the new Syrian leadership, but Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona, said her past skepticism of intelligence assessments of Syrian chemical weapons attacks raised questions about her judgment and fitness to oversee the nation’s spy agencies.
Listening to people sympathetic to Russia and Syria, Mr. Kelly told Ms. Gabbard, “led you to minimize or discount overwhelming information that contradicted your viewpoint, including the expert assessments of our intelligence community.”
Before the hearing, Gabbard secured the support of a key Republican.
Senator Tom Cotton, the Arkansas Republican who leads the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been one of Mr. Snowden’s most outspoken critics and holds foreign policy positions on Russia and China at odds with Ms. Gabbard’s record. But in an appearance on Fox News before the hearing, he endorsed Ms. Gabbard’s nomination.
During the hearing, several Republicans asked pointed questions of Ms. Gabbard, including James Lankford of Oklahoma, Todd Young of Indiana and Susan Collins of Maine. But whether any of them will be a no vote on Ms. Gabbard’s nomination is not known.
If one Republican on the committee votes no, it is still possible that she will get a floor vote, but her nomination would be in trouble.
Senators questioned her sympathetic comments about Russia.
Since Mr. Trump announced he would nominate Ms. Gabbard, her statements about Russia have been examined and questioned.
Under questioning about Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, Ms. Gabbard stated that “Putin started the war.”
But other questioning about her pro-Russian comments did not go so smoothly.
Senator Jerry Moran, Republican of Kanas, asked if Russia would “get a pass in either your mind or your heart.” He apparently meant it as an opportunity for Ms. Gabbard to distance herself from Moscow, but she responded that she was “offended by the question.”
Then Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado and Ms. Gabbard’s toughest questioner, read a series of her social media posts. On the night of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, in February 2023, Ms. Gabbard wrote that the war could have been avoided if the Biden administration and NATO had acknowledged Russia’s “legitimate security concerns.”
“Did you say that yes or no?” Mr. Bennet asked.
“I believe you are reading my tweet, senator,” Ms. Gabbard replied.
“Yes is the answer,” Mr. Bennet said.
The post 4 Takeaways From Tulsi Gabbard’s Confirmation Hearing appeared first on New York Times.
