Why Gabbard Confirmation Hearing Focused So Much on Snowden

Why Gabbard Confirmation Hearing Focused So Much on Snowden

If the Senate confirms Tulsi Gabbard as President Donald Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, she will take on the significant responsibility of briefing him daily on the nation’s most sensitive information. During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, members from both parties voiced substantial concerns regarding her suitability for this vital role.

Gabbard, a former Democratic Congresswoman from Hawaii and a U.S. Army Reserve officer without a background in intelligence, faced scrutiny over controversial moments from her past. Questions arose about her 2017 meeting with Syrian leader Bashar Assad, her skepticism of U.S. intelligence regarding Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons, and her criticisms of the intelligence community’s data collection on American citizens. However, many Senators focused on her praise for former NSA contractor Edward Snowden to question her overall judgment.

In 2013, Snowden leaked 1.5 million classified documents concerning military and intelligence operations and sought asylum in Russia after initially traveling to Hong Kong to share some of the information with journalists. His disclosures revealed extensive U.S. government surveillance programs, igniting a national debate over civil liberties. Gabbard has publicly called Snowden “brave,” leading Senators to argue that her support for someone who disclosed classified information could undermine her credibility as the Director of National Intelligence.

Throughout the hearing, Gabbard was repeatedly asked whether she still stood by her compliment of Snowden. She maintained her stance, stating, “Edward Snowden broke the law. He also exposed information that revealed the illegal activities of the United States government.” Notably, Snowden’s revelations contributed to the passage of the USA Freedom Act in 2015, which aimed to limit the government’s collection of American phone records.

In 2016, a bipartisan investigation by a House intelligence committee concluded that Snowden’s actions caused “tremendous damage” to national security, with a Russian official claiming that he had shared intelligence with Moscow.

Several Senators pressed Gabbard to label Snowden as a traitor, but she remained firm in her refusal. Republican Senator James Lankford from Oklahoma asked her directly if she considered Snowden a traitor for leaking intelligence and fleeing to Russia. Gabbard replied, “Senator, I’m focused on the future and how we can prevent something like this from happening again.”

Indiana Senator Todd Young, another Republican, pointed to Gabbard’s past statements advocating for a pardon for Snowden and asked if she believed he had betrayed his duty to the American people. Gabbard refrained from labeling him a traitor, reiterating that while Snowden broke the law, he “released his information in a way he should not have.”

Young suggested that Snowden might be watching the hearing. Before Gabbard met with Senators, Snowden himself commented on social media, suggesting that Gabbard would need to renounce her prior support for whistleblowers to secure her confirmation. He playfully encouraged her to tell Senators that he “harmed national security and the sweet, soft feelings of staff.”

“This may be a rare instance where I agree with Mr. Snowden,” Young remarked.

Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat from Colorado, expressed frustration at Gabbard’s reluctance to condemn Snowden’s actions and her failure to distance herself from previous comments that seemed to justify Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. “Can’t we do better than somebody who can’t answer whether Snowden was a traitor five times today, who made excuses for Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine?” Bennet questioned.

“I’m questioning her judgment, that’s the issue that’s at stake here,” he added.

When asked if she knew that her remarks regarding Russia’s invasion in 2022 had been amplified by Russian state television, Gabbard replied, “I don’t pay attention to Russian propaganda. My goal is to speak the truth whether you like it or not.”

At the start of the hearing, Gabbard delivered a harsh critique of the American intelligence community’s history. “For too long, faulty, inadequate, or weaponized intelligence have led to costly failures and undermined our national security and the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution,” she asserted. She cited the flawed intelligence that claimed Iraq’s former dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers and millions in the region, as well as the rise of extremist groups and the empowerment of Iran. Furthermore, she criticized the intelligence community’s investigation into Donald Trump during his presidency, which she claimed falsely portrayed him as a puppet of Putin. If confirmed as the top intelligence official, Gabbard pledged to “break this cycle of failure and the weaponization of and politicalization of the intelligence community.”

As the hearing wrapped up on Thursday, it remained uncertain whether the pushback Gabbard faced over Snowden and other issues would hinder her nomination. Despite recent controversies, nearly all Republican Senators had supported Trump’s nominees in the preceding days. Even allegations of heavy drinking and aggressive behavior had not prevented Pete Hegseth’s confirmation as Defense Secretary, and most Republican Senators appeared ready to overlook Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s extensive public opposition to vaccines to endorse him as head of Health and Human Services.