I Served With Tulsi Gabbard and Yikes
She’s no good.
DURING MY TIME IN CONGRESS, I had the privilege of working with all kinds of people from all over the country with different experiences, backgrounds, priorities, ideologies, approaches, strengths, and weaknesses. One of the people I overlapped with was Tulsi Gabbard, whom Donald Trump has announced he intended to nominate to become director of national intelligence (DNI). This role, the top job in America’s huge, powerful, world-beating intelligence-gathering and analysis enterprise, requires someone with steadfast integrity, sound judgment, and an unwavering commitment to the security of the United States.
Gabbard lacks all three qualities.
This isn’t personal. I didn’t work particularly closely with Gabbard, who was a junior Democrat when I was a junior Republican. We didn’t cross paths enough to develop any personal enmity. This is about qualifications and character. The DNI is entrusted with coordinating the vast intelligence apparatus of the United States, overseeing eighteen agencies, including the CIA, NSA, and FBI, tasked with protecting our country from threats foreign and domestic. This role requires someone who embodies stability, impartiality, and a commitment to truth. Based on Gabbard’s record and demeanor, she fails on all counts.
What I saw in Gabbard when we were in the House was a politician who seemed more concerned with self-promotion than serious governance. While some members of Congress are known for their principled stands, she was known for her erratic behavior and frequent flip-flopping. She switched positions on key issues whenever it suited her political ambitions, leaving her colleagues—and the public—questioning where her true convictions lay. For example, in 2016 she cosponsored legislation to sanction Iran for its ballistic missile program, but in 2021 she called sanctions “draconian” and equated them with starvation tactics. (What changed in between? Hard to say, but it might have been the tough sanctions against Russia that Congress passed in 2017.)
Some members of Congress are staunch ideologues. Others are flexible pragmatists. (Congress is a lot like America in that way.) One skill that successful legislators learn is how to work with ideologues who have fixed commitments to their principles, and when to let them take their stands. (I’ve taken my fair share.) But Gabbard didn’t fall into either of these camps. Instead, she attached herself to whatever movement she thought was most likely to lead to her personal promotion. When that was the Bernie Sanders–progressive wing of the Democratic party, she became a Sanders-style progressive. When she saw more of an opportunity in Trump’s MAGA movement, she turned on a dime to join it, and even switched parties.
THERE ARE ONLY THREE CONSTANTS in Gabbard’s political biography: self-promotion; an attraction to quasi-revolutionary movements like Sanders’s and Trump’s coupled with a hostility to the boring, detailed work of governing; and an abiding attraction to murderous authoritarians. She has been a frequent guest on Russian state-sponsored television, often parroting narratives that align more closely with Vladimir Putin’s propaganda than with American interests—or, for that matter, the truth. Her controversial meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in 2017 raised serious questions about her judgment and motivations. Assad, a brutal autocrat responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, is not someone any American leader should cozy up to. Yet Tulsi saw fit to grant him legitimacy by meeting with him, an act widely condemned by members of both parties and one that would prevent any normal American from obtaining even the lowest-level security clearance.
Gabbard often touts her military service, and while I respect her for wearing the uniform, military service alone does not qualify someone to lead our intelligence community. Moreover, her time in Congress showed little evidence that she understands the complexities of the intelligence world. She did not serve on committees with significant oversight of intelligence operations, nor did she display a grasp of the nuances required to manage and interpret intelligence effectively. She’s never shown the people skills required for a position that oversees eighteen other chief executives, all of whom also have other bosses. And she’s never run an organization anywhere close to as big and complicated as the intelligence community.
What concerns me most, however, is the amorality apparent in her decision-making. A DNI must be resolute in defending the Constitution, impartial in assessing threats, and unwavering in his or her commitment to American values. Gabbard’s track record suggests she prioritizes personal advancement and political expediency over these critical responsibilities. Her ability to shift loyalties and principles to suit her ambitions is not a trait we need in a position that demands impartiality and integrity.
Trump’s choice of Gabbard for this role is as perplexing as it is dangerous. By selecting someone with no significant intelligence experience and a history of erratic behavior, he is undermining the credibility of one of the most important positions in our national security apparatus—one whose ability not only to uncover and protect secrets but to tell hard truths to people in power is a key asymmetric advantage the United States enjoys over its adversaries. Worse still, Gabbard’s history of promoting authoritarian narratives raises legitimate concerns about her ability to prioritize America’s interests over those of foreign adversaries.
Why did Trump choose Gabbard? The answer seems obvious. Her willingness to parrot Trump’s talking points and support his agenda makes her an ideal flunky. As DNI, she would be expected to provide impartial analysis and offer hard truths when necessary, even if it conflicts with the president’s desires. But based on her history, I have little confidence she would do so. Instead, she would twist intelligence to fit Trump’s political narrative, jeopardizing the safety and security of the American people.
It’s important to keep in mind that the risks to American national security aren’t abstract. Sometimes, America’s intelligence advantage comes from human sources and our ability to recruit people to betray their own governments on behalf of the United States. These human sources help us stay one step ahead of our adversaries. In the past, when their security has been compromised, they have been executed. I worry what might happen to untold numbers of American assets if someone as reckless, inexperienced, and outright disloyal as Gabbard were DNI.
The Senate still has the opportunity to block Gabbard’s nomination. Some current senators served with Gabbard, but for those who didn’t, take it from me: We’re all much safer if you vote no.
 | A guest post by
|