Tulsi Gabbard’s DNI Nomination Sparks Controversy Amid Concerns Over Past Statements and Associations

Former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s selection as the next US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) by President-elect Donald Trump has reignited debates over her controversial political stances. Gabbard’s 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and her remarks on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have drawn intense scrutiny as she prepares for a role that would make her responsible for 18 intelligence agencies and serve as a principal adviser to the president.

If confirmed, Gabbard would oversee some of America’s most sensitive secrets, a responsibility that has raised concerns among former national security officials and lawmakers. Critics argue that her past actions and comments could damage trust and collaboration within the intelligence community and with foreign allies.

Retired diplomat Lewis Lukens, who previously served as deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in London, voiced apprehensions about Gabbard’s judgment, suggesting it could undermine intelligence-sharing relationships. “Her dubious judgment could give allies reason to question how safe it is to share intelligence with the US,” Lukens told the BBC.

Gabbard, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve with deployments to Iraq and Kuwait, has dismissed such concerns, calling her detractors “warmongers” seeking to discredit anyone challenging Washington’s foreign policy orthodoxy. Trump defended his decision, praising Gabbard’s “fearless spirit” and commitment to public service, which he claimed would benefit the intelligence community.

Yet, Gabbard’s appointment has drawn praise from Russian state media, adding fuel to the controversy. Olga Skabeyeva, a prominent Russian talk show host, highlighted Gabbard’s criticism of US actions in Ukraine and her meeting with Assad as examples of her alignment with Russian perspectives. “Virtually from the first days of Russia’s special operation in Ukraine, she explained its reasons,” Skabeyeva said.

Gabbard’s political career has been marked by a mix of anti-war rhetoric and skepticism toward US intelligence operations, earning her both admiration and criticism across party lines. However, her decision to visit Assad in 2017 during a “fact-finding” mission as a congresswoman stirred widespread outrage. Her subsequent doubts over US intelligence assessments that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons against civilians exacerbated the backlash.

After a 2017 chemical attack in Syria killed over 80 people, the Trump administration launched airstrikes on a Syrian airbase, an action Gabbard labeled “reckless and short-sighted.” She argued that such moves risked escalating the Syrian conflict and hindering investigations into the attack. US intelligence and a UN panel later concluded that Assad’s government was responsible for the sarin gas attack. However, both Assad and Russia denied the allegations, claiming the airstrike hit a rebel-held depot containing chemical munitions.

These events loomed over Gabbard’s unsuccessful 2019 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Defending her stance, she asserted that Assad was “not the enemy of the United States because Syria does not pose a direct threat.”

Her statements regarding Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine further fueled controversy. Gabbard suggested the war could have been avoided if the US and NATO had acknowledged Russia’s security concerns over Ukraine’s potential NATO membership. Additionally, she claimed that US-funded biolabs in Ukraine might be compromised, leading to the release of dangerous pathogens. This statement aligned with Russia’s unfounded allegations that the US was aiding Ukraine in developing biological weapons, drawing sharp criticism from figures like Republican Senator Mitt Romney, who accused Gabbard of spreading “treasonous lies.” In response, Gabbard sent Romney a cease-and-desist letter.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Gabbard accused Vice President Kamala Harris of being the “main instigator” of the Ukraine conflict, citing Harris’ support for NATO’s expansion. Trump’s former UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, who opposed him in the Republican primary, recently declared that Gabbard’s views made her unsuitable for a high-level intelligence role. “This is not a place for a Russian, Iranian, Syrian, Chinese sympathiser,” Haley stated.

Some officials worry Gabbard’s appointment could jeopardize the trust between the US and its allies. A former senior White House official expressed concern that her differing views on figures like Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin might disrupt intelligence diplomacy. “It certainly will raise real questions in the minds of foreign counterparts,” the official told the BBC. A former NATO official echoed this sentiment, questioning why someone with “wacky views” and no relevant background would be entrusted with such a critical position.

However, not all foreign allies expect drastic changes. Duncan Lewis, former head of Australia’s domestic spy agency, emphasized the strength of the US-Australian alliance, saying, “Our bilateral security relationship is strong and long-standing, and I expect that to continue.”

The nomination process for DNI is expected to be contentious. The DNI shapes the president’s daily intelligence briefing, giving them significant influence over national security priorities. Some senators have expressed reservations about Gabbard’s suitability. Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat and former CIA officer, noted that Gabbard’s past statements appear to favor adversarial positions. “Certainly, it gave me pause when I heard the nomination,” Slotkin said.

Senator James Lankford, a Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, indicated that Gabbard would face tough questions about her history, including the Assad meeting. Conversely, Republican Senator Eric Schmitt criticized accusations from Democrats that Gabbard was “compromised,” calling such claims “totally ridiculous” and baseless. Senator Markwayne Mullin, also a Republican, described Gabbard as a “solid choice” and encouraged skeptics to engage with her directly. “What I’ve been telling everybody is just sit down and talk to her,” Mullin said.

Gabbard’s nomination highlights the broader divisions within US politics over foreign policy and the role of intelligence. Her anti-establishment views and unconventional approach may appeal to Trump’s base, but they also raise significant concerns about her ability to foster trust and cooperation within the intelligence community and with global allies. As the Senate gears up for what promises to be a heated confirmation process, Gabbard’s past actions and statements will undoubtedly remain under the microscope.