During her confirmation hearing on Thursday, former Democrat and war veteran Tulsi Gabbard—President Donald Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence—faced scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats. Lawmakers probed her on prior remarks about government whistleblower Edward Snowden, her contacts with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syria’s former ruler Bashar al-Assad, and her opinion on Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Former Democratic congressman from Hawaii Gabbard, who sought her party’s presidential candidacy in 2020 before supporting Trump in 2024, was accused of repeating Russian propaganda to support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Democratic Senator Michael Bennet emphasized her earlier comments, including her claim that Putin had “legitimate security concerns” about NATO growth. “Do you believe that a totalitarian state is justified in rolling over the peaceful border of Ukraine?” Bennett asked Gabbard. He called her “our friend Tulsi” and said Russian state TV had broadcast her remarks.
How Did Gabbard Address Inquiries About Edward Snowden?
Gabbard also came under bipartisan criticism for backing former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, who disclosed confidential records revealing U.S. monitoring operations. When asked whether she thought Snowden was a traitor, she evaded a straight response. She conceded, “Snowden broke the law,” but “I have more immediate actions I would take to prevent another Snowden.” Her answer made several Republicans uncomfortable.
Why Was Gabbard Investigated Regarding Her Meeting with Assad?
Legislators went back over Gabbard’s divisive 2017 trip to Syria when she met then-President Bashar al-Assad. At the time, the U.S. has denounced Assad’s administration for attacking civilians, particularly concerning chemical weapons. Gabbard said she asked Assad “tough questions about his own regime’s actions.” She defended the trip. Dealing with criticism ahead of time, she said in her opening words, “I have no love for Assad or Gaddafi or any dictator.” Later, she said, “I shed no tears for the fall of the Assad regime,” but cautioned that “today we have an Islamist extreme who is now in charge of Syria.”
Why Was Kash Patel Questioned Regarding His Support of Capitol Rioters?
Trump’s nominee for FBI Director, Kash Patel, too had a demanding five-hour confirmation hearing. Former federal prosecutor and Trump administration ally Patel came under criticism for his past support of people engaged in the Capitol disturbance on January 6. Legislators pushed him on his part in supporting a charity song produced by rioters—including those found guilty of violent crimes directed at law enforcement officials.
Directing Patel personally, Senator Dick Durbin said, “Was President Donald Trump wrong to give blanket clemency to the January 6 defendants?” Patel retorted, “I have always rejected any violence against law enforcement, including in that group, any violence against law enforcement on January 6.” On numerous occasions, though, he refrained from denouncing Trump’s pardon of individuals found guilty of attacking police.
How Did Patel Justify His Attacks on the FBI?
Patel had a more subdued approach at the hearing, even though he had earlier harsh comments about the FBI. Emphasizing his two main objectives—tackling violent crime and rebuilding confidence in federal law enforcement—he gestured to public opinion polls demonstrating falling faith in the agency. “If confirmed, I will remain focused on the FBI’s core mission—that is, investigate fully everywhere there is a constitutional factual basis to do so,” Patel added.
How Does Patel See the “Deep State” and QAnon?
Democrats kept pressing Patel on his earlier comments and ties. In his book Government Gangsters, he expressed his conviction on a so-called “deep state” conspiracy against Trump. Patel has also been connected to the QAnon movement, which advances the baseless belief that a covert group of senior authorities is involved in criminal activity.
Although Patel tried to distance himself from some of his earlier comments, his history of endorsing conspiracy theories and ties to Trump followers were a significant focus of the hearing.
Now awaiting Senate votes on their nominations, Gabbard and Patel balance their contentious pasts against their commitments to serve in their designated jobs.
