February 12, 2025 - 11:40pm
Tulsi Gabbard’s 52-48 Senate confirmation vote puts the former vice chair of the Democratic Party in the cabinet of a Republican president. Gabbard left the party in 2022, after first endorsing self-identified democratic socialist Bernie Sanders for president in 2016, then running unsuccessfully for the nomination herself in 2020.
Sanders voted against Gabbard’s confirmation on Wednesday. Last month, he voted to confirm Marco Rubio as Secretary of State.
Most of the partisanship attacks on Gabbard are related to her own transformation as much as it’s related to the party’s transformation. Her deep distrust of the intelligence community she’ll now oversee actually put her squarely on the wrong side of Hillary Clinton, who’s openly suspected Gabbard of being a Russian asset.
Bitter opposition to Gabbard’s harsh criticism of Obama-era policies in Russia and Syria unite Clinton with neoconservatives like Mitch McConnell, who was the lone Republican to vote against her. Before the vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested more Republican senators would have voted against Gabbard if the vote had been anonymous. “If we had a secret ballot, Gabbard might get 10 votes and 40 against her from the [Republican] side,” said Schumer. “But Donald Trump and Elon Musk, evidently, threatened them. And they’re changing their view.”
I asked a senior GOP source involved in the confirmation whether that was true. “He’s not totally wrong,” the person said. “Senate Republicans hate MAGA. It’s the overwhelming power of Trump’s mandate that’s pushing them along”. The source pointed to what happened when Joni Ernst wavered on Pete Hegseth’s nomination, before being privately coerced by Trump allies to fall in line.
Schumer’s hypothetical could be flipped on his own side. Would Sanders vote to confirm Gabbard if the names were anonymous? Certainly most Democrats would not, but it’s not at all silly to think a handful would.
Gabbard’s foreign policy views are somewhat complicated, and not as purely dovish as her detractors suggest. She is, though, a radical critic of the intelligence community as it’s existed since 9/11. Many Democrats once held similar positions until it became a culture war litmus test in the Trump era to support spy agencies.
Republicans did not make it easy on Gabbard. Though she once led a charge to repeal Section 702, an infamous source of spy power, Gabbard said recent reforms to the authority had addressed her concerns during the course of the confirmation process. Had she fully resisted the programme, her nomination may have lost more senators than just McConnell.
With two conflicts currently revolving around questions of intelligence, especially intelligence about Iran in the Gaza war, Gabbard is now in a position to convey her own assessments of that intelligence back to the president. The stakes of this are enormous. Joe Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan was blamed on an intelligence failure. Most Americans vividly remember poor intelligence convincing them to support an invasion of Iraq two decades ago.
Gabbard served in Iraq. Her popularity with Republican voters who feel betrayed by their own party and sent children to fight in that war is no surprise at all. Gabbard is the next generation of political leadership, whether the old guard likes it or not. They can blame themselves for her rise.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeMore great news from our American cousins across the pond. There’s hope for us all yet.
(Keep up the fantastic reportage Emily…)
Trump is bullying Senators because he can. If they openly oppose Trump, they risk incurring the wrath of the Republican base and getting ‘primaried’ by populist MAGA candidates. They understand that their only hope is to pretend loyalty to the President while secretly hoping he screws up so badly that an opportunity will open up for them to take the party back, not that they won’t be any less constrained by new realities than others. It’s more about a petty power dispute than anything else at this point, since most of what Trump has done won’t and can’t actually be reversed. Even Biden didn’t even try to backtrack towards the globalist position on any issue other than immigration. He doubled down on economic nationalism as quietly as he could hoping no one would notice, and most Americans didn’t, but the rest of the world did. He didn’t reconcile with Chairman Xi or try to reinstate Chimerica even facing double digit inflation. The Overton window has already moved because of Trump, and most of the Republicans that secretly hate MAGA for moving it would also admit there’s nothing they or anyone else can do to move it back. They simply have to work within the new guardrails.
Mitch McConnell doesn’t have to pretend because he has no political future and knows it. He’s old, frail, and announced his retirement. He’s basically showing his true colors and giving the voters from his home state of Kentucky who overwhelmingly support Trump the finger on his way out the door. He’s probably hated his own voters since at least 2010, when Kentucky Republicans picked Rand Paul over Mitch’s hand picked choice for the other Senate seat in his home state. At this point, he no longer feels the need to hide his true feelings. He has lost and knows he has lost, so there’s no reason to pretend to care about the voters and he can be the bitter, vindictive, power grasping, elitist he probably always was. I’m not sure why he’s bothering to remain in office. The state governor is a Democrat and would presumably appoint a Democrat to a vacant Senate seat, but if Mitch is going to oppose Trump and vote with the Democrats, how would that change anything . Again, it’s just the petty whining of a sore loser, the sort we would scold a ten year old for displaying. McConnell has lost all respectability in my eyes.
I’m not entirely sure what game Sanders is playing. One would think he’d be bitter towards Democrats for twice blocking his path to the nomination and for instead ignoring Americans demand for change and thus handing the mandate for reforming the American system to an unstable element like Trump when it could have been him and Democrats would no doubt be better off for it today. One might suspect he would take the opportunity to vote for the confirmation of someone who he has personally supported in the past as a way to remind the Democrats that the American people were demanding change and Democrats had multiple opportunities to choose a different course with people like Gabbard and himself. Perhaps though he too has realized that he is also old, also frail, and has also been defeated. If this is the case, it speaks to his personal character that rather than show the vindictiveness one would suspect he harbors, he is showing himself to be a better man than Mitch by actually staying consistent and faithful to the voters of Vermont, who surely expect him to oppose Trump, and not placing his own petty squabbles ahead of the people’s will or the duty of his office.
Don’t worry about the Senators. They’ll soon be back doing what they are in the Senate to do: insider trading.
And they’ll eat steak too!
“What game is Sanders playing”? He got rich voting with the Democrats. Bernie Sanders owns three homes:
A house in Burlington, Vermont (his primary residence).A townhouse in Washington, D.C. (used while serving in the Senate).A vacation home in North Hero, Vermont (a lakefront property).Sanders is a happy Socialist!
While I suspect this is fairly typical of any Senator and doesn’t actually say much about Sanders personally that couldn’t be said about any of the others, I concede this is a plausible interpretation of the facts.
Bernie Sanders is not that well off compared to most politicians. He did make a fair amount of money from books and speeches, but his homes are relatively modest and his vacation home in particular is more like a fishing shack.
I’m no fan of his, but I don’t think he’s a hypocrite.
Lot of assumptions.
Here’s hoping she does some good in office; my sincere wishes for her success.
In the US, the Director of National Intelligence is not the face of anything. It’s an important position but one out of the limelight and not political, usually not even a member of the cabinet though they are considered cabinet level. The job requires management skill (which Tulsi Gabbard has shown no talent for or experience in — her experience in the Army was in the reserves) to bring together all the intelligence agencies. Tulsi Gabbard has her talents and experience, but they don’t fit this role.
Look at who Donald Trump had for his DNI in his first term to see how the job is not exactly the place one shines from. Former Congressman Dan Coats was DNI for a little over 2 years, then left (or was kicked out) as he and Donald Trump did not get along well. Then Donald Trump appointed John Ratcliffe but withdrew his nomination after pushback. Two men then served as acting secretary before John Ratcliffe was once again nominated and this time was confirmed to fill the remaining months of his term.
Look at Tulsi Gabbard’s political history and it’s not impressive. She entered politics young, but peaked out as a representative from Hawaii. She ran for president in 2020 because she would have lost her congressional seat anyway. She got 1% of the vote in the Iowa caucuses and 3% in the New Hampshire primary before her funds ran out. She has had no real job since.
Donald Trump is not known for his cabinet picks. Indeed, as Tucker Carlson says, Donald Trump is not a particularly good executive or manager. He’s best as an individual contributor, where he shines. So I don’t think his picking Tulsi Gabbard means much. She’s not going to be the new face of anything.
Tulsi Gabbard is honest (not naive), honourable, tenacious and has integrity.
That’s enough.
Not for me. I’m honest (not naive), honorable, tenacious and have integrity. But I would be terrible at the job of DNI.
Character traits are important, but they don’t get the job done. You need talent, training and experience to manage a large organization in a specialized field. Tulsi Gabbard has the talent, training and experience of a politician. That’s not a good fit for this job.
Tulsi Gabbard is a politician, Bobby Kennedy is a trial lawyer, and Pete Hegseth is a television presenter. None of them is qualified to lead a large organization, especially a specialized one like intelligence, public health, or the military.
Character is Destiny
(McCain, Shakespeare, Heraclitus)
Think of it this way. If you were the general manager of a professional hockey team and you were trying to decide who to draft for your team, would you base your decision more on a subjective view of their character or on an objective view of their proven performance?
Politics exists because there is much gray area to human condition. Black and white hockey stats are less than half what’s needed to be effective politician.
McCain was a senator. Character is anathema to that job. Years as POW failed to develop any in him. He was a product of the DC blob, went RINO, and became liebermans AIPAC WASP handpuppet.
Anyone who thinks Edward Snowden is not a traitor is (at best) naive, and (at worst) a “Russian asset”. I mean, the guy lives in Russia. What more proof can there be that he’s “Putin’s man”?
Wasnt he escaping from a feared assassination?
Edward Snowden lives in Russia because he was trapped there on his way to Ecuador. It wasn’t his choice. He has never worked against the United States to aid its enemies. Quite the contrary, he worked hard to avoid any harm. His goal was to tell the American people they were being spied on illegally. That’s not traitorous. Just the opposite.
I believe wiki leaks did data dumps on Russia and China too. We in US of course never got this info. Changes the narrative.
Look at those before her who were qualified?
Did they do a good job?
Did Tulsi Gabbard’s qualified predecessors do a good job? I thought Avril Haines did well. Dan Coats, a Republican predecessor, was a champion of her when she was nominated. She was confirmed 84 to 10.
Maybe Tulsi Gabbard will do a good job as DNI — it’s hard to predict, and she does have a lot of good qualities. My point is that judging from what she has done so far in her career she doesn’t have the talent, training or experience to qualify her for the job.
And she is nowhere near being the face of the MAGA movement. Personally I don’t think she’ll last long as DNI. I think she’ll be gone in less than a year, probably by choice but if not she’ll be fired.
Donald Trump is hard to work for, and the DNI seems to be a particular trouble spot. Tulsi Gabbard is a free spirit, and that doesn’t jibe well with Donald Trump.
No doubt she has ambitions beyond an admin job. She’s got to leave early, get elected to congress or senate. This sets he up for POTUS run in 10 yrs.
She already been a Congresswoman.
I’ll bet Tulsi Gabbard never wins another election. She has certainly burned her bridge to any elected office in Hawaii. She’s abandoned the Democrats but she’s not a Republican. What office is she going to run for and win?
Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and The Democrat Party Machine choose a long-suffering dementia patient, Joe Biden, and later, and a patently unelectable bufoon, Kamala Harris. Mr. Danger, please share your critque of these choices.
Why does comrade in chief Obama always get left out of this topic?
Tulsi resigned as DNC vice chair in protest at the way the DNC was stealing the Democrat nomination for the 2016 Presidential election from Sanders, who would probably have beaten Trump, and giving it to Clinton, who lost to Trump. The Clintons had bought the nomination by paying off the Democrat Party’s debts. This is why she is hated by Clinton and the Democrat Establishment.
Of course she also served in the CIA’s war in Iraq, as opposed to getting other people’s children to serve and die.
Even if true, Sanders is a Socialist by his own admission. No good whatsoever would come from having a Socialist in the White House.
Agreed. Except Sanders would not have beaten Trump, though he absolutely would have won the DEM primaries (even in 2020.) Therefore, not only Clintonian arrogance , but also DEM pragmatism, guided the corruption of the DEM process.
One theory is some Senators rolled with Hegseth and Gabbard because their perceived level of ability meant it wasn’t thought they could do much harm, and besides they won’t be the real powers in decision-making.
That of course could be a fatal error. Somebody out of their depth having never run a massive organisation full of hubris could do alot of harm even if unintended.
Gabbard’s judgment certainly variable. It’ll be interesting if she ever gets to speak Bashar El-Assad about how much his predecessor was a great ally of the US. As it is already one can see a good number of Arab leaders picking up the phone to talk to Xi. The Iranians will certainly be feeling a bit better than they were now US peed off most of their Sunni enemies.
Still trying to figure out how sn establishment choice is somehow qualified for the job, while the gabbards and hegseths are somehow out if their depth.
“It’s the overwhelming power of Trump’s mandate that’s pushing them along”.
That’s deluded. Trump won with a narrow margin. His control of the senate and congress could disappear quickly, especially as no Dems will support any of his bills.
I love Tulsi but she’s a little out of her comfort zone here. The critique of neoconservatism should rather focus on the State Department money funnelled towards post-Soviet nations looking to usurp pro-Russian governments. That is the diplomatic basis of permanent war in Europe.
Interesting point. Which came first, US politicsl aid to east Europe? Or heavy Russian in put to these political processes? US reactive attempt to balance Russia influence would probably have 90% approval from US electorate. In the 1990s for sure. Even today, probably 2/3 would approve. DEI/ESG requirements would not.
“Most Americans vividly remember poor intelligence convincing them to support an invasion of Iraq two decades ago.”
How many people genuinely believe it was “poor intelligence”, as opposed to falsified intelligence?
I can’t speak for Americans, but I think the invasion of Iraq was an entirely good thing, and seeing Saddam Hussein “dancing the Tyburn Jig” was the icing on the cake.
Disgusting. Alleged Kurdish witnesses withdisguised voices. Saddam’s crime was to run a secular state, like Syria. A million times more democratic and successful than the local tribal autocracies.
You are the flip side of Vladimir Putin. Your justification for invading Iraq sounds just like his justification for invading Ukraine.
One Million dead’s, millions of refugees to Europe, no mass destruction weapons found. All that based of CIA laying. That should be good?
There is a good book about it.
Gabbard doesn’t think Edward Snowden is a traitor. That is proof enough for me that she is a Russian asset.
As I did, you likely cheered when Snowden dumped the data. Only when Trump revealed more deep state crimes did you change your mind. Some will blindly take the other side of every issue from Trump.
It was not poor intelligence got US into Iraq. Most reports did not confirm WMD. and boots on the ground found none. It was war criminal Cheney and the rest of WH that invented WMD out of whole cloth.
Tulsi Gabbard would be an excellent successor to Trump.
Or Vance/Gabbard 2028 and 2032. And Gabbard for POTUS 2036 and 2040. She’s still quite young relative to the trilobites running DC.
Chuck Schumer, former Senate Majority Leader, said/warned/threatened President Trump in 2016: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community; they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”
This was the kick-off of the reviled Lawfare and “Russia, Russia, Russia” hoax by Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Corrupt Legacy Media, legions of hate-fueled apparatchiks, and international reprobates.
Cleanup starts today.Tulsi Gabbard, United States Director of National Intelligence, is the first giant step.