Washington — Tulsi Gabbard‘s nomination to be President Trump’s director of national intelligence is in peril as she faces skepticism from senators ahead of her confirmation hearing Thursday.
Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii and combat veteran, faces a narrow path to confirmation amid concerns over her decision to meet with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in 2017, her past push to pardon National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, her views on Ukraine and her previous opposition to renewing a key government surveillance authority, known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
If confirmed, the 43-year-old who has no background in intelligence, would be tasked with overseeing the nation’s 18 spy agencies.
Last week, two sources told CBS News that Gabbard’s nomination is at risk of being blocked and called the situation “fluid.” Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine are among the Republicans concerned about her nomination, they said.
Collins sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee and could tip the scale against her. Gabbard cannot afford to lose a single Republican vote on the panel, which has nine GOP members and eight Democrats.
Collins said Monday she’s seeking clarity from Gabbard about her position on Section 702. Gabbard, who sought to repeal the controversial law that authorizes the U.S. government to collect the communications of foreigners abroad without a warrant, has since reversed her stance. In a statement to Punchbowl earlier this month, Gabbard said she now supports the surveillance authority, calling it “crucial” to protecting national security.
“My prior concerns about FISA were based on insufficient protections for civil liberties, particularly regarding the FBI’s misuse of warrantless search powers on American citizens. Significant FISA reforms have been enacted since my time in Congress to address these issues,” she said. “If confirmed as DNI, I will uphold Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights while maintaining vital national security tools like Section 702 to ensure the safety and freedom of the American people.”
Collins said Gabbard’s response to her questions have been “hedged and unclear.”
Gabbard’s secret trip to Syria in 2017 in which she met with Assad is expected to be another focus of Thursday’s hearing. Gabbard’s trip faced an outcry from her fellow lawmakers, who argued it legitimized the brutal dictator. Assad fled the country in December 2024 after his regime was toppled.
“When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so because I felt that it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we can achieve peace,” she said in 2017.
She also doubted whether the Assad regime was behind a chemical weapons attack on its own civilians, which international weapons experts said originated from Syrian government sites.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is not a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday said he would be paying attention to Gabbard’s hearing.
“I tend to vote for almost everybody at both parties, but I want to see how the hearing goes,” Graham said. “Why did you go to Syria? What did you do regarding the Assad [regime]? Why do you think Edward Snowden should be held as a hero? I certainly don’t.”
In 2020, Gabbard called for the dismissal of charges against Snowden, who leaked a trove of information on the U.S. government’s top-secret mass surveillance programs. Snowden, who was charged with espionage in 2013, has been living in exile in Russia.
Gabbard drew further ire after Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when she made statements that were viewed by some as parroting Russian propaganda.
“This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO, which would mean US/NATO forces right on Russia’s border,” she wrote at the time.
Ed O’Keefe and
contributed to this report.
