Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump’s pick to be director of national intelligence, came into her nomination hearing Thursday ready to parry a volley of attacks from Democrats. But they weren’t the only ones asking the tough questions.
A number of Republicans seemed skeptical about Gabbard’s answers to questions about NSA contractor Edward Snowden and a controversial surveillance program. They also prodded her about her previous statements on Russia, Syria and Ukraine. It was a marked difference from the hearing of now-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth two weeks ago, in which Republicans heaped praise on the nominee and defended him from Democrats’ attacks.
While no Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee said outright they were wavering on the former Democratic lawmaker, it was far from a bear hug. Among those testing Gabbard’s views Thursday were James Lankford (R-Okla.), Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).
The lack of enthusiasm was not a promising sign for the former Democratic lawmaker. For weeks, Senate Republicans have said Gabbard needed a strong performance Thursday to clinch her nomination. The Senate Intelligence Committee is split 9-8 between the two parties, and Gabbard is not expected to pick up any votes from Democrats.
Young, one of the three members of the panel long viewed as a possible “no” on Gabbard heading into Thursday, offered up one of the most direct Republican jabs. It came after she sidestepped a stream of questions from members of both parties about whether she considered Snowden a traitor.
“I think it would befit you and be helpful to the way you are perceived by 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 authority,” he said.
Senators repeatedly reminded Gabbard that Snowden leaked reams of sensitive U.S. intelligence that endangered the lives of U.S. spies before he fled to Hong Kong and then Russia — to no avail.
Gabbard acknowledged Snowden broke the law but wouldn’t go further.
Since her surprise nomination two months ago, Gabbard has faced questions from Democrats but also some Republicans about her judgment, dovish foreign policy views and her lack of experience for the spy role.
Gabbard served for two decades in the military, is an Iraq war veteran, and has sat on the House Armed Services committee, but has never held a role at a U.S. spy agency.
Her nomination has been dogged by her past comments that echoed Kremlin talking points on NATO and the war in Ukraine; concern about a 2017 trip she took to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad; and doubts she has raised about U.S. assessments of Assad’s use of chemical weapons in that war.
From the start, Gabbard set a combative and defiant tone.
In her opening statement, she characterized many of the allegations against her as “lies and smears,” and cited a laundry list of recent wrongs and failures within the U.S. intelligence community. She looked up at the senators on the panel as she ticked off each one — the investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia, the Iraq war, denials about the existence of controversial NSA surveillance programs, and more — and rarely looked flustered when she came under tough questioning later.
Gabbard tried to spin her unconventional foreign policy views as evidence she boasts the brand of independent thinking that is needed to fix the country’s supposedly broken and biased intelligence system.
The Republican who offered the strongest endorsement of that pitch was Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) the chair of the intelligence committee.
“Look where conventional thinking has gotten us,” he said in his opening statement, citing a slew of failed U.S. wars and military interventions in the Middle East that he tied to Barack Obama. “Maybe Washington could use a little more unconventional thinking.”
Gabbard had her share of not-so-breezy moments with other Republicans, however.
Lankford — who has said he would vote for Gabbard — Cornyn, and Moran each pushed Gabbard during the question and answer section of the hearing.
Moran at one point told Gabbard he needed to make certain that Russia would not “get a pass in either your mind or your heart” if she were confirmed as DNI. Gabbard parried: “Senator, I’m offended by the question,” and added that if confirmed, “no country or group or individual will get a pass.”
Lankford appeared irked by Gabbard’s deflections on Snowden.
“This is a big deal to everybody here, because it’s a big deal to everybody you’ll also oversee,” Lankford said at one point. “So, was Edward Snowden a traitor?”
Collins and Young also pressed her on the issue. Young at one point burnished a print-out of a social media post Thursday from Snowden.
Gabbard will be “required to disown all prior support for whistleblowers as a condition of confirmation,” Snowden wrote. “I encourage her to do so.”
The Senate Intelligence Committee tends to have more bipartisanship than some other congressional panels. Democrats and Republicans generally share hawkish views on foreign policy and government surveillance, and committee votes are usually done behind closed doors.
For his part, Cornyn pushed Gabbard for more clarity on her views on the controversial Section 702 surveillance authority — which applies to foreigners’ communications but also sweeps up data on Americans. Gabbard, a privacy hawk while in Congress, in recent weeks reversed her opposition to Section 702 and said she supports it.
But Cornyn repeatedly attempted to pin Gabbard on whether the law should be reformed in certain ways to protect the privacy of Americans — something security hawks believe is unnecessary, and would cripple what they defend as their most powerful spy tool.
The clock ran out before he got a firm answer.
After the open hearing Thursday, Gabbard and the senators went behind closed doors for a follow-up session where they could talk freely about classified matters. What transpires there could prove decisive in the committee’s vote on Gabbard, which could come in the coming days.
Asked afterward how she was planning to vote, Collins said that she hadn’t made a decision yet. Moran sidestepped a question on if he would support her, and Young said nothing in response to questions as he left the classified portion.
If Gabbard does not secure a majority on the panel, there are other ways her confirmation can be brought to the Senate floor. But that is an unusual maneuver and would send a strong message that could sink her chances with those outside the committee.
Maggie Miller, Jordain Carney, Joe Gould and Eric Bazail-Eimil contributed to this report.
