fbpx

RECENT NEWS

Poor performance

Gabbard’s testimony stokes conservative concerns about her nomination

The former congresswoman’s refusal to call Edward Snowden a traitor reignited GOP angst about her qualifications as director of national intelligence

Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

Tulsi Gabbard, nominee to be Director of the office of the Director of National Intelligence, testifies in front of the Senate Intelligence in Washington, DC, United States on January 30, 2025.

Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation hearing on Thursday to become director of national intelligence seems to have done little to improve her standing among Republicans — and may, in fact, have worsened concerns among some conservative skeptics.

Gabbard, at her hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, repeatedly provided vague answers on key questions from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including on whether government leaker Edward Snowden was a traitor, among other issues.

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), a onetime Gabbard skeptic who had been won over by her announcement that she now supports key surveillance authorities under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which she had previously opposed, expressed concern about her stance on Snowden.

“I thought [that] was a pretty easy question, actually, to be able to just come through and say, ‘This is universally accepted, when you steal a million pages of top secret documents and you hand it to the Russians, that’s a traitorous act,’” Lankford told reporters. “So that did catch me off guard … I was surprised because that doesn’t seem like a hard question. It wasn’t intended to be a trick question by any means.”

He added that issues like Snowden’s leaks and the 702 authorities are central to the questions of the DNI’s job, shaping what information the U.S. is able to collect from its sources and allies and, in turn, provide to decision-makers in the U.S. “It’s kind of the core issue,” he said.

Lankford said later, after a classified portion of the hearing, there are “a lot of questions” about Gabbard’s confirmation prospects.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), another potential swing vote, said she felt Gabbard had answered her questions, pointing to Gabbard saying she would not make any recommendations to President Donald Trump about potentially pardoning Snowden and confirming that she had not knowingly met with members or affiliates of Hezbollah during previous foreign travels.

Asked if the responses satisfied her enough to get behind Gabbard’s nomination, Collins demurred, noting that she had not yet watched the full hearing because she had to leave to participate in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation hearing to be Health and Human Services secretary. 

“I want to see the rest of her exchanges, since I have a very personal interest in who’s the DNI, because along with [the late Sen.] Joe Lieberman, I wrote the 2004 bill that created the director of national intelligence,” Collins said. “So frankly, this matters to me personally as well as from a professional policy perspective.”

Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) pressed Gabbard during the hearing about Snowden, saying he fit the dictionary definition of a traitor.

“I think it would befit you and be helpful to the way you are perceived by the 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 authorities,” Young said at the end of his questioning. “So thank you for being here,” he concluded, with a scowl.

He declined to comment on his thoughts on the hearing later in the day.

Sen. John Curtis (R-UT), who attended the public hearing as an audience member, said he remains undecided because he felt there were gaps in Gabbard’s public record that he hoped would be filled by her hearing, but were not.

“Frankly, there are many notes still missing and a number of sour notes and awkward silences that simply don’t ring true as a political philosophy on critical national security issues,” Curtis said in a statement. “I leave today’s hearing with more questions than answers. Some of her responses, and non-responses, created more confusion than clarity and only deepen my concerns about her judgement and what that will mean in this vital role.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), a Gabbard supporter, said on Fox News on Thursday evening, “I’m worried that her nomination may be in jeopardy.”

Gabbard’s refusal to take a stance on whether Snowden is a traitor also garnered criticism from conservatives off the Hill.

Eric Levine, a prominent GOP fundraiser and Republican Jewish Coalition board member, called on the Senate to block Gabbard’s confirmation because of her non-answers on Snowden. 

“That completely disqualifies her for the position,” Levine wrote in an email sent to his network on Thursday. “The Senate should vote NO on her confirmation.”  

During the election, Levine criticized Trump for including Gabbard on his presidential transition team, citing her past endorsement of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and calling her a “fringe” figure with “fringe policy positions that offend most Republicans and Independents.”

Marc Thiessen, a conservative commentator and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, called it “disqualifying” that Gabbard would not answer whether Snowden was a traitor, adding that it was “not a gotcha question, it’s a softball question.”

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) pressed Gabbard on whether she sees Russia as a threat to the United States beyond the war in Ukraine. He also said he wanted to “make certain that in no way does Russia get a pass in either your mind or your heart in any policy recommendation you would make or not make.”

She responded that she was “offended by the question,” insisting that she would not allow politics or her personal views to influence U.S. intelligence.

Gabbard, on the night of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, had suggested that NATO was to blame for the conflict, though she said during the hearing that Russian President Vladimir Putin was at fault.

Moran told reporters after his questioning, “Col. Gabbard’s answers to my questions met my standard of being satisfactory to answer the information that I wanted.” Asked if he’d vote to support her, he declined to say: “I’ve answered the questions about what I heard in this meeting.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) pressed Gabbard at the hearing on her views on Section 702, asking her whether she believed warrants should be required for such collection. He emphasized that courts had ruled that warrants are not necessary and that Section 702 does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Gabbard responded, “My commitment remains to uphold the Constitution and Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights,” and largely avoided offering her personal views on the necessity of warrants.

Cornyn told reporters after the hearing, “I thought she did OK.” In a terse statement, he said that, given that Trump won the election and has the right to appoint a Cabinet, “it is my intention to consent to the appointment.”

Section 702 is due for reauthorization next year. Gabbard had previously sought to repeal Section 702 while she was in Congress, and said last year that recent reforms were insufficient. She has reversed that view since being nominated, saying the reforms had addressed many of her concerns.

Democrats appear mostly lined up against Gabbard.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, said that her refusal to fully denounce Snowden could make U.S. allies hesitant to share information. He said that he doesn’t “have the foggiest idea where she is on the need for a warrant” for Section 702.

He expressed some hope that Republicans would block her confirmation, saying “I have great faith in my Republican senators’ integrity on these kind of issues.”

Warner told JI, “My concern level went up” after the classified briefing.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) said that he believes the committee members unanimously see Snowden as a traitor and “that’s a big concern” that she could not give an “adequate answer” to those questions.

Kelly said he’s also concerned by what he described as her trusting Russian, Syrian and Iranian disinformation over U.S. intelligence sources.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), an advocate for greater privacy protections in surveillance programs, said he was pleased with her comments on that issue. But he said he was “very concerned” that she would not commit to rejecting illegal orders by Trump; she instead responded that she does not believe Trump would issue such orders.

Subscribe now to
the Daily Kickoff

The politics and business news you need to stay up to date, delivered each morning in a must-read newsletter.