Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump’s pick to be the next director of national intelligence, endured a difficult hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday as lawmakers pressed her on her views on Edward Snowden, spying, Syria and Russia.
The former congresswoman and Army lieutenant colonel has been considered among the toughest lifts of Trump’s nominees, and based on the public portion of Thursday’s hearing, Gabbard remains in a tough spot. She likely needs to win a majority of the 17 committee votes — which could be difficult in its own right — to reach a floor vote.
Her two and a half hour public meeting with lawmakers came before a second hearing behind closed doors where she and lawmakers were able to discuss sensitive topics.
Here are five takeaways from her hearing.
Snowden dominates the discussion
Over and over, members of the panel from both sides of the aisle asked Gabbard about Snowden. And over and over, she came back with a repeated, stock answer that did not appear sufficient for them.
Senators had indicated for weeks that they were concerned about Gabbard’s past remarks regarding the disgraced National Security Agency contractor who leaked myriad classified documents.
Gabbard co-authored legislation supporting a pardon for him and supported a bill that would have given increased whistleblower protections for individuals accused of violating the Espionage Act — both of which were anathema to members on the Intelligence panel.
While Snowden came up several times during the first hour, it wasn’t until the second half of the hearing that the issue exploded, as Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) asked her twice if Snowden was a traitor. She demurred both times.
“My heart is with my commitment to our Constitution and our nation’s security,” Gabbard said, laying out four actions she would take to prevent another future Snowden-like leak.
“Senator, I’m focused on the future and how we can prevent something like this from happening again,” she said after Lankford asked a second time.
Those answers prompted Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) to ask the question three additional times before letting loose on Gabbard for her inability to give a “yes” or “no” answer.
“This is when the rubber hits the road. This is not a moment for social media. This is not a moment to propagate conspiracy theories or attacks on journalism in the United States,” Bennet said. “This is when you need to answer the questions of the people whose votes you are asking for to be confirmed as the chief intelligence officer of this nation.”
In total, more than a half-dozen members asked her about the now-Russian citizen, with Gabbard repeatedly responding that Snowden “broke the law” and that she disagreed with how he released the information.
Her inability to answer whether Snowden was a traitor baffled even some of her supporters.
“I felt that was a pretty easy question, actually, to be able to come through and just say, ‘This is universally accepted when you steal a million pages of top-secret documents and you hand them to the Russians, that’s a traitorous act,’” Lankford told reporters after the open session. “That did catch me off guard.”
“I was surprised, yeah. Because that doesn’t seem like a hard question on that,” he continued. “It wasn’t intended to be a trick question by any means.”
Gabbard runs into resistance from GOP swing vote
Atop Gabbard’s to-do list on Thursday was winning over a pair of Senate Republicans who are believed to be on the fence about her nomination: Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Todd Young (Ind.). She cannot afford to lose even a single GOP vote on the committee.
Young, a former Marine intelligence officer, pressed Gabbard hard about Snowden, seemingly unimpressed with her answers.
He asked about a House Intelligence Committee report that found Snowden “caused tremendous damage” including “to military, defense and intelligence programs of great interest to America’s adversaries.”
Gabbard reiterated her oft-used line that Snowden “broke the law” and that she would push to avoid a repeat instance in the future. The answer did not appear sufficient for Young.
“It’s notable you didn’t say, ‘Yes, he clearly hurt, in various ways, our national security,’” Young responded.
Young went on to ask about how she thinks rank-and-file members of the intelligence community will receive her given her past comments about Snowden and whether he “betrayed the trust of the American people” — adding that marks the definition of a “traitor.”
Gabbard once again said Snowden broke the law and repeated similar lines she peppered members with on Snowden-related questions.
Young finally retorted that Snowden was watching the hearing and declared it would do her a world of good “if you would at least acknowledge that the greatest whistleblower … harmed national security by breaking the laws of the land around our intel authority.”
Young is far from a carbon copy of most Trump-supporting senators who have come into office in recent years. He was one of the few who never endorsed Trump during his 2024 campaign and is a prominent defense hawk. One GOP source went so far as to say that Young was “a problem” for Gabbard heading into the hearing.
Collins, meanwhile, did not create many waves during her questioning as part of the open session, asking whether Gabbard has met with any Hezbollah leaders or members and other queries pertaining to the terror threats facing the U.S. and her proposal to protect whistleblowers from prosecution if they reveal classified information.
Gabbard tries to assuage concerns on 702 after Collins criticism
Though Collins didn’t ask about Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Thursday, the intelligence tool appears to be at the center of her apprehension about Gabbard.
And it came up repeatedly throughout the hearing as Gabbard tried to convince panel members that she no longer was against what they roundly believe to be a critical tool to gather intelligence on foreign soil.
Gabbard was an avid opponent of Section 702 — which allows for the warrantless surveillance of foreign targets — throughout her time in the House. She proposed legislation in 2020 to repeal the program and voted numerous times against reauthorizing it.
This raised red flags for numerous members of the committee, prompting Gabbard to flip her position since being nominated.
“[Section 702] provides a unique security tool and capability that is essential for our national security. There are a number of areas we would be blind from a national security perspective without this capability,” Gabbard said, adding that the tool “must exist next to having safeguards” to back the civil liberties of Americans.
However, her current stance has not been up to muster for some who will decide her fate. Collins told The Hill last week that she did not believe Gabbard actually changed her stance on this issue given the nominee’s answers to written questions that were “hedged” frequently.
Gabbard defends 2017 Syria trip
Gabbard, since she was nominated, has found herself on the back foot over her 2017 visit to Syria for a secret meeting with then-President Bashar Assad, and on Thursday she attempted to defend the visit to lawmakers.
When asked by Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) whether the trip exhibited “good judgment,” she said that it had.
“Yes, senator. And I believe that leaders, whether you be in Congress or the president of the United States, can benefit greatly by going and engaging,” she said. “Boots on the ground, learning and listening and meeting directly with people, whether they be adversaries or friends.”
Gabbard said she asked Assad “tough questions” about his regime’s actions, including the use of chemical weapons on Syrians. She added that she met with then-Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) about the trip without any intelligence community or State Department officials present.
She also admitted that the meeting did not produce any concessions from Assad.
Assad was deposed as Syrian leader in December and was granted asylum in Russia.
Senators press Gabbard on Russia comments
Gabbard tried to quell concerns about her stance on Russia and the ongoing war in Ukraine, brushing off accusations that she is a “puppet” of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In the most surprising and jarring moment related to Russia, Gabbard told Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) that she was “offended” by him asking if Russia would receive “a pass” in “either your mind or your heart” when making a policy recommendation.
“I am offended by the question because my sole focus, commitment and responsibility is about our own nation, our own security, and the interest of the American people,” Gabbard said. “In carrying out the responsibilities of the director of national intelligence, if confirmed, no country, group or individual will get a pass.”
Gabbard was known for echoing Putin’s talking points on the Ukraine war to the point where Russian state television promoted her comments.
At one point, Gabbard claimed that the Biden administration and NATO were partially responsible for the war, having argued that they should have “simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns.”
On Thursday, Heinrich followed up by asking who was responsible for the war.
“Putin started the war in Ukraine,” she responded.
