Of President Trump’s cabinet picks, Tulsi Gabbard, a former representative from Hawaii, could have the hardest time making it through the confirmation process. On Thursday, with several key senators still undecided, she appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee for an all-important hearing as senators grilled her on her past remarks about Edward Snowden and her unorthodox views on Russia and Syria. Here’s what Times Opinion columnists and contributors thought of her performance.
Best Moment
Michelle Goldberg Senator Mark Kelly’s questions about Gabbard’s skepticism that Bashar al-Assad was behind two chemical weapon attacks in Syria were pointed and effective. Kelly demonstrated her willful credulousness in the face of dubious characters who tell her what she wants to hear.
Jacob Heilbrunn Poised and confident in her opening statement, Gabbard deftly turned the brouhaha about her close ties to a secretive sect in Hawaii into an opportunity to defend Hinduism and depict herself as a hapless victim of religious intolerance. Talk about playing the D.E.I. card.
W.J. Hennigan Gabbard received glowing endorsements at the beginning of the hearing from Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, and former Senator Richard Burr, who praised Gabbard’s military and public service. As a former chair of the Intelligence Committee, his commendation may go a long way in providing cover for wary Republicans.
Nicholas Kristof Asked who she blames for the Ukraine war, Gabbard said bluntly, “Putin started the war in Ukraine.” After her past blather about Russia’s “legitimate security concerns” and in a hearing full of her evasions, that was a reassuring acknowledgment of a reality that should be obvious to all.
Curt Mills Gabbard, who has a reputation as an outsider, looked like a seasoned political professional from the very start. Her opening line was a home run: She said she was motivated to be director of national intelligence because of the intelligence failures that led to the war in Iraq.
Kori Schake Senator Martin Heinrich’s efforts to establish the timeline, funding and contents of her conversations during her trip to Syria in 2017. She fought her corner well — answering frankly, defending her trip as a learning and listening expedition and expressing her surprise that no one from the intelligence community or the State Department sought to debrief her after the trip.
Megan K. Stack I caught myself rooting for Gabbard when she condemned the “egregious, illegal and unconstitutional programs” exposed in the 2013 leaks from Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who publicly disclosed classified intelligence collection programs. It felt like a badly needed show of consistency from Gabbard, who’s given contradictory and hastily revised statements on surveillance, Ukraine, Syria and more.
Farah Stockman Gabbard shined when she described the Iraq war as the costliest misuse of intelligence in our lifetimes: “a total fabrication or complete failure of intelligence.” As someone who served in Iraq, she speaks for millions when she decries “regime change wars.”
Worst Moment
Goldberg It’s hard to disentangle the mix of fact and conspiratorial insinuations in her opening statement without plunging down rabbit holes. She implied, for example, that she came under T.S.A. scrutiny for criticizing Kamala Harris, when in fact it was because of Gabbard’s meeting with someone on an F.B.I. terrorist watchlist.
Heilbrunn There were many disgraceful moments of her testimony, but one particularly galling example came when she refused to account for her whitewashing of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If she didn’t pay attention to the Kremlin’s regurgitation of her piffle about the war, as she stated, then how can she plausibly head American intelligence efforts?
Hennigan Gabbard was grilled about her support for Snowden. She was asked many times whether she considered him a traitor — an opinion widely shared by Democrats and Republicans. Gabbard refused to answer each time.
Kristof All the questions about her history of awful judgment remain. Pressed on the many bizarre statements she made over the years, Gabbard stonewalled. She dodged questions about her enthusiasm for Snowden and about surveillance. Worse, she seemed to doubt that the overthrow of the Syrian regime was positive.
Mills Senators Michael Bennet and James Lankford and others beclowned themselves with obsessive questions about Snowden — a man who committed a crime over a decade ago but one who exposed abuses by our government. Their focus revealed the kind of myopia that has now twice motivated Americans to vault Trump into power.
Schake Worst was her obfuscation whenever she was asked — over 10 times, by my count — whether Snowden was a traitor and whether she still supports a bill she introduced in 2020 that urged the U.S. government to drop charges against Mr. Snowden.” All she could do to defend herself was acknowledge that he broke the law.
Stack When successive lawmakers tried, unsuccessfully, to browbeat Gabbard into calling Snowden a traitor, the whole hearing took on the nasty tone of a struggle session. Lawmakers came across as uncomfortably intent on forcing her to parrot the right language — a test of compliance rather than an exploration of her ideas.
Stockman She sounded naïve when she said she “was not aware of any accusations” against the two brothers who arranged the 2017 trip she took to Syria and Lebanon “until after the trip occurred.” The media has alleged that the brothers have ties to a Syrian political party that is friendly with Hezbollah.
What Else Mattered
Goldberg There’s been lots of reporting that some Republicans on the committee aren’t sold on Gabbard, and you could see that in their questioning. “I want to make certain that in no way does Russia get a pass in either your mind or your heart,” said Jerry Moran, Republican of Kansas.
Heilbrunn My, my. The most telling event wasn’t any of Gabbard’s outlandish stands but something else: the readiness of Senator Tom Cotton to carry water for her murky record and qualifications. If Joe Biden had been the one to nominate Gabbard, Cotton, an inveterate foreign policy hawk, would have eviscerated her.
Hennigan Cotton, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the Office of the Director of National Intelligence had swelled beyond its original mandate: to improve coordination among federal agencies. Gabbard committed to work with Cotton and the Senate Intelligence Committee to rein in the office and eliminate “redundancy and bloating” in its 2,000-employee work force.
Kristof While Gabbard didn’t resolve any of the lingering questions about her past sympathy for Russia, the Syrian regime and Snowden, she was disciplined and measured in a way that may reassure Republicans. She didn’t step on land mines. Still, the thought of her responsible for the President’s Daily Brief is a nightmare.
Mills The continued evolution of Cotton is something to watch. He has an ultrahawkish pedigree, but he casually used the terms “mission creep” and “empire building” in the hearing. The vibe shift in Washington looks real.
Schake Three things stand out: the seriousness with which the senators on the committee approached the proceedings; Gabbard committing to stricter data protection laws for American companies, as well as TikTok; and her saying, “I do not believe for a moment that President Trump would ask me to carry out an illegal order.”
Stack She’s often described as an antiwar figure, but that’s not quite right. Gabbard is a military officer who spews venom over Islam. “I just hate Al Qaeda,” she said, with Meghan McCain perched approvingly behind her. It’s true: Gabbard generally approves of war on Islamic extremists but criticizes war against anyone oppressing Islamists (Hosni Mubarak, Bashar al-Assad, Muammar el-Qaddafi). This is her unifying theory.
Stockman She’s an odd choice to lead the intelligence community, to be sure, since she’s so out of step with the people she’s supposed to lead. But what short memories people have! So many Democrats have railed against the warrantless wiretaps and hailed Snowden as a hero. Now those positions are disqualifying?
Michelle Goldberg and Nicholas Kristof are Times Opinion columnists.
Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of The National Interest, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and the author, most recently, of “America Last: The Right’s Century-Long Romance With Foreign Dictators.”
W.J. Hennigan writes about national security issues for Opinion from Washington. He has reported from more than two dozen countries, covering war, the arms trade and the lives of U.S. service members.
Curt Mills is the executive director of The American Conservative.
Kori Schake worked for the National Security Council and in the State Department during the George W. Bush administration. She is the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
Megan K. Stack is a contributing Opinion writer. She has been a correspondent in China, Russia, Egypt, Israel and Afghanistan and covering the U.S.-Mexico border.
Farah Stockman is a member of the editorial board.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, X and Threads.
