Highlights from Tulsi Gabbard’s Confirmation Hearing for Director of National Intelligence

Tulsi Gabbard, a former Congresswoman and candidate for the position of director of national intelligence, faced the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on January 30 for her confirmation hearing.

Gabbard represented Hawaii in the House as a Democrat from 2013 to 2021 and was involved in key committees, including Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, and Armed Services, as well as its Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations.

She enlisted in the Hawaii Army National Guard in 2003, transitioned to the Army Reserve in 2020, and currently holds the rank of lieutenant colonel.

She was nominated by then-President-elect Donald Trump in November 2024, who stated that she would safeguard both the security and constitutional rights of all Americans.

Gabbard’s suitability for the role has been scrutinized by members from both parties due to her views on intelligence gathering and U.S. interventionism.

Here are four significant highlights from the confirmation hearing.

Scrutiny of Support for FISA 702

Gabbard has consistently clashed with the intelligence community in Washington over her deep-rooted stance that Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) should be abolished.

Related Stories

This provision permits U.S. intelligence agencies to conduct large-scale surveillance on foreign targets, which can sometimes inadvertently capture sensitive personal data belonging to American citizens.

During her congressional tenure, Gabbard attempted to abolish both FISA 702 and the Patriot Act, which authorized the wiretapping of Americans’ communications.

“Section 702 is a vital tool for our national security,” Gabbard stated during the hearing, emphasizing that “significant reforms to FISA have been implemented” since her congressional days.

Former Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines testified last year that Section 702 afforded intelligence agencies “unique insights,” and that excessive oversight could impede the “agility” necessary to tackle emerging threats.

Many attendees at the January 30 hearing expressed doubt regarding Gabbard’s newfound support for Section 702, with Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) challenging her alleged “conversion” on the matter.

“You previously advocated for its repeal,” Warner remarked.

“Section 702 is crucial. While I appreciate this about-face, I remain skeptical, given your consistent stance previously.”

Demand for Accountability within Politicized Agencies

Gabbard also criticized numerous actions taken by current and former intelligence personnel, asserting that these actions have politicized the intelligence community.

She condemned the FBI’s efforts to undermine Trump’s first term by exploiting FISA authorities to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Furthermore, she denounced the involvement of 51 former intelligence officials who leveraged their backgrounds to falsely assert that claims involving Hunter Biden’s laptop constituted Russian disinformation.

In that context, Gabbard stated her priority would be delivering “unbiased, timely, and accurate intelligence” to ensure the freedom and safety of the American populace.

These comments arise amidst growing partisanship and eroding trust in institutions across the United States.

Simultaneously, the belief that the Intelligence Community threatened civil liberties nearly doubled during that same period.

These beliefs tend to be expressed along partisan lines, with trust in U.S. intelligence wavering based on whether the president belongs to the same party as the survey participant.

“I will strive to restore trust through transparency and accountability, as this is a national security imperative,” Gabbard declared.

“Safeguarding the security, safety, and freedoms of the American people transcends partisan politics.”

Stance on Snowden and Government Leaks

A recurring point of contention during the hearing was Gabbard’s past support for Edward Snowden.

Snowden, a former technical assistant for the CIA and employee at the NSA, gained notoriety after leaking over a million files from government servers in 2013 and subsequently seeking asylum in Russia.

His actions have branded him a traitor to some, accusing him of endangering American servicemembers, while others regard him as a whistleblower who revealed extensive surveillance and civil rights violations by the U.S. government.

His disclosures brought to light the existence of Prism, an NSA program that accessed Americans’ audio and video communications, emails, texts, images, and documents from major tech corporations like Microsoft, Google, and Apple.

Since then, the U.S. has sought Snowden for espionage charges, and he was granted Russian citizenship by Putin in 2022.

In front of the committee on January 30, she stated: “While Edward Snowden broke the law and released this information improperly, he also unveiled unconstitutional practices, prompting many reforms initiated by this body over the years.

“My earlier statements reflected the extreme and illegal programs exposed by that leak.”

Several lawmakers, including Warner and Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.), argued that Snowden jeopardized the safety of U.S. agents and disclosed intelligence operations to adversaries.

The lawmakers labeled Snowden a “traitor” and pressed Gabbard to echo their sentiments, to which she declined.

Gabbard did mention that she would not pursue a pardon for Snowden if confirmed as DNI.

“We cannot permit individual actors within the Intelligence Community to make unilateral decisions about how to expose our nation’s classified information,” she stated.

Prioritizing Domestic Security over Interventionism

During the hearing, Gabbard’s prior remarks on various international conflicts were revisited as lawmakers sought to gauge her stance on U.S. adversaries.

Many lawmakers expressed concerns about Gabbard’s characterizations of the invasion of Ukraine as a mere proxy war between NATO and Russia, along with her skepticism regarding reported chemical weapon attacks in Syria.

On matters of international conflict, Gabbard directed attention to the Intelligence Community, accusing it of “bureaucratic mission creep and empire building.”

She argued that flawed U.S. intelligence and excessive interventionism led to the Iraq War and the resulting power vacuums in Syria, Libya, Egypt, and beyond.

“What genuinely unnerves my political opponents is that I refuse to be a pawn,” Gabbard asserted.

“For far too long, erroneous, inadequate, or weaponized intelligence has resulted in costly blunders and the jeopardization of our national security and the sacred freedoms granted by the Constitution.”

Some members of the committee questioned the rationale behind employing military force to alter the political systems of other states.

“I was against the disastrous interventions in Egypt and Libya as well,” remarked Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).

“Most governments throughout history and even today are not democratic. While we can hope for change and work to encourage it, this is the reality. If we only allied with nations that reflected our governmental frameworks and cultural values, our circle of allies would be very small.”

Jackson Richman contributed to this report