Fred Kaplan
SLATE
Mon, January 20, 2025 at 3:34 AM MST
This is part of Hello, Trumpworld, Slate’s reluctant guide to the people who will be calling the shots now—at least for as long as they last in Washington.
It is quite possible that Tulsi Gabbard, the nominee to be director of national intelligence, may emerge as one of the few figures—not just among President Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks but in modern American history—to be outright rejected in the Senate confirmation process. If the Republican majority in the present Senate were just a little less pliant than it is, she would be laughed out of the chamber, the matter settled in a lopsided voice vote. Then again, if Trump were a bit less determined to destroy the “deep state,” he wouldn’t have considered her for such a job in the first place.
Even more than the array of other hair-raising nominees, the prospect of Gabbard as the nation’s top intelligence chief seems the stuff of dark satire—like Caligula naming a horse as his consul (though historians have determined that, in Caligula’s case, batty as he was, this never happened).
An eccentric former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, who switched to MAGA Republican after losing a far-fetched bid for the presidency, Gabbard’s utter lack of experience at running an organization of any size—much less coordinating all 18 U.S. intelligence agencies—constitutes only the least compelling cause for greeting her nomination with laughter or tears.
To the extent she discusses foreign affairs, she tends to parrot Kremlin propaganda points. Her own staff have revealed that she frequently cites RT, Moscow’s main outlet for these points, as her source of news—especially about the war in Ukraine and the role of NATO, including the lie that the U.S. has set up bioweapons labs on Ukrainian soil. The host of Channel One, the Russian government’s main TV outlet, reacted with glee to Gabbard’s nomination, calling her “our girlfriend.”
This doesn’t mean that she’s a Russian agent, but many of her words reflect Russian interests—and, if allowed to occupy a key position high up in the U.S. government, her actions may soon do so as well.
The job Gabbard may soon hold was created in 2004, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, after a special commission concluded that the plotters might have been thwarted if the myriad U.S. intelligence agencies had exchanged information more often. The idea was that the DNI would supervise and coordinate the myriad agencies, in order to “connect the dots” and thus see looming patterns of threatening activity.
It hasn’t turned out quite that way. Most of the agencies have retained their independence, in all senses of the word. In some respects, this is for the good. If the only problem with Gabbard (or any of her predecessors or successors) were inexperience or incompetence, the directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and all the rest could take up the slack.
But the DNI can wield enormous power, if he or she decides to grasp it. Gabbard would have access to all intelligence, not just from the various U.S. agencies but from allies that share their intel with us. She would be in charge of national intelligence estimates on specific issues. And she would both organize and present the “President’s Daily Briefing”—the summary of worldwide threats and trends compiled for the president on a daily basis or however often it’s desired.
These will be particularly important duties in the coming four years because, judging from his first term in the Oval Office, Trump tends to discount, or utterly dismiss, views contrary to his own—and Gabbard, an adroit opportunist if nothing else, can be counted on to gear her estimates and briefings to what the boss wants to hear. Agency heads who disagree with the DNI’s findings are free to submit dissenting views, but—again if his first term is anything to go by—Trump isn’t interested in such subtleties; he wants the consensus view only and, even then, boiled down to no more than a page or two. Besides, John Ratcliffe, Trump’s nominee to be director of the CIA (the official who headed the estimates and briefings before DNI was created, and whose resources still dominate these processes), showed himself very willing and adept at politicizing intelligence during the brief time when he was DNI at the end of Trump’s first run in the White House.
But more concerning than Gabbard’s inexperience, or her propensity for politicization, is her ideology—specifically her leanings toward Moscow. A retired senior U.S. intelligence official, who is still well-connected, told me recently that several intel agencies—especially the NSA, with its intercepts of foreign officials’ communications—might be reluctant to share their information with a DNI like Gabbard. So would the heads of allied intelligence agencies, those that routinely share their most highly classified collections with one another and with us. The U.S. relies on these exchanges both in alerting the president to threats and in helping the president make everyday policy.
In other words, the very presence of Tulsi Gabbard at the top of the “free world’s” intelligence community will be widely seen—by friends, foes, and those in between—as a risk to U.S. security.
Tulsi Gabbard Reveals How She Cashed in By Going Full MAGA
Mon, January 20, 2025 at 3:34 AM MST
This is part of Hello, Trumpworld, Slate’s reluctant guide to the people who will be calling the shots now—at least for as long as they last in Washington.
It is quite possible that Tulsi Gabbard, the nominee to be director of national intelligence, may emerge as one of the few figures—not just among President Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks but in modern American history—to be outright rejected in the Senate confirmation process. If the Republican majority in the present Senate were just a little less pliant than it is, she would be laughed out of the chamber, the matter settled in a lopsided voice vote. Then again, if Trump were a bit less determined to destroy the “deep state,” he wouldn’t have considered her for such a job in the first place.
Even more than the array of other hair-raising nominees, the prospect of Gabbard as the nation’s top intelligence chief seems the stuff of dark satire—like Caligula naming a horse as his consul (though historians have determined that, in Caligula’s case, batty as he was, this never happened).
An eccentric former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, who switched to MAGA Republican after losing a far-fetched bid for the presidency, Gabbard’s utter lack of experience at running an organization of any size—much less coordinating all 18 U.S. intelligence agencies—constitutes only the least compelling cause for greeting her nomination with laughter or tears.
To the extent she discusses foreign affairs, she tends to parrot Kremlin propaganda points. Her own staff have revealed that she frequently cites RT, Moscow’s main outlet for these points, as her source of news—especially about the war in Ukraine and the role of NATO, including the lie that the U.S. has set up bioweapons labs on Ukrainian soil. The host of Channel One, the Russian government’s main TV outlet, reacted with glee to Gabbard’s nomination, calling her “our girlfriend.”
This doesn’t mean that she’s a Russian agent, but many of her words reflect Russian interests—and, if allowed to occupy a key position high up in the U.S. government, her actions may soon do so as well.
The job Gabbard may soon hold was created in 2004, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, after a special commission concluded that the plotters might have been thwarted if the myriad U.S. intelligence agencies had exchanged information more often. The idea was that the DNI would supervise and coordinate the myriad agencies, in order to “connect the dots” and thus see looming patterns of threatening activity.
It hasn’t turned out quite that way. Most of the agencies have retained their independence, in all senses of the word. In some respects, this is for the good. If the only problem with Gabbard (or any of her predecessors or successors) were inexperience or incompetence, the directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and all the rest could take up the slack.
But the DNI can wield enormous power, if he or she decides to grasp it. Gabbard would have access to all intelligence, not just from the various U.S. agencies but from allies that share their intel with us. She would be in charge of national intelligence estimates on specific issues. And she would both organize and present the “President’s Daily Briefing”—the summary of worldwide threats and trends compiled for the president on a daily basis or however often it’s desired.
These will be particularly important duties in the coming four years because, judging from his first term in the Oval Office, Trump tends to discount, or utterly dismiss, views contrary to his own—and Gabbard, an adroit opportunist if nothing else, can be counted on to gear her estimates and briefings to what the boss wants to hear. Agency heads who disagree with the DNI’s findings are free to submit dissenting views, but—again if his first term is anything to go by—Trump isn’t interested in such subtleties; he wants the consensus view only and, even then, boiled down to no more than a page or two. Besides, John Ratcliffe, Trump’s nominee to be director of the CIA (the official who headed the estimates and briefings before DNI was created, and whose resources still dominate these processes), showed himself very willing and adept at politicizing intelligence during the brief time when he was DNI at the end of Trump’s first run in the White House.
But more concerning than Gabbard’s inexperience, or her propensity for politicization, is her ideology—specifically her leanings toward Moscow. A retired senior U.S. intelligence official, who is still well-connected, told me recently that several intel agencies—especially the NSA, with its intercepts of foreign officials’ communications—might be reluctant to share their information with a DNI like Gabbard. So would the heads of allied intelligence agencies, those that routinely share their most highly classified collections with one another and with us. The U.S. relies on these exchanges both in alerting the president to threats and in helping the president make everyday policy.
In other words, the very presence of Tulsi Gabbard at the top of the “free world’s” intelligence community will be widely seen—by friends, foes, and those in between—as a risk to U.S. security.
Tulsi Gabbard Reveals How She Cashed in By Going Full MAGA
Sean Craig
DAILY BEAST
Tue, January 21, 2025
Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images
Tulsi Gabbard made hundreds of thousands of dollars from Republican-friendly media and advocacy groups in 2024, according to a personal disclosure.
While canvassing the country as a top MAGA surrogate, the former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii earned more than $1.2 million.
That includes nearly $200,000 from her role as a Fox News contributor and nearly $120,000 from the Christian legal advocacy group American Center for Law & Justice, which has steered millions of dollars to a prominent ex-Trump lawyer who defended the president at his 2020 impeachment trial.
Gabbard, President Donald Trump’s nominee for director of national intelligence, earned $80,000 in total from five addresses given to local Republican Party chapters. That made up just over half of the $170,000 she earned from speaking engagements, which included an address to the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Gabbard, who left the Democratic Party in 2022, surprised Trump at at an October rally by pledging her full MAGA fealty and announcing she had become a Republican.
The Trump nominee also netted an advance of just under $300,000 for her book For Love of Country: Leave the Democrat Party Behind from Skyhorse Publishing.
Other Skyhorse releases include Melania Trump’s memoir Melania, a hagiographic book on former Trump strategist Steve Bannon, and a conspiratorial book about former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci by Trump nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
On top of her writing, media, and speaking work, Gabbard raked in $373,000 from her company Tulsi Media LLC, the holding company for her podcast The Tulsi Gabbard Show, and $36,000 from her production company TOA Studios LLC.
In a Jan. 15 letter to an ethics official at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Gabbard pledged that Tulsi Media LLC will remain dormant during her tenure as director. She said she would transfer full ownership of TOA Studios to her husband.
The former congresswoman’s disclosure also shows that she poured earnings back into MAGA causes: She holds a stake worth $100,000 to $250,000 in right-wing YouTube competitor Rumble and a $100,000 to $250,000 stake in Elon Musk’s Tesla.
Gabbard pledged to divest her interests in both, as well as holdings in Apple, Bitcoin, and Nvidia, during her appointment as director of national intelligence
According to her filing, she is also the owner of three apartment complexes in Texas, one worth $5 million to $25 million, and two worth between $25 million and $50 million each.
Gabbard has faced scrutiny for meeting with former Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and expressing foreign policy views critics have alleged echo the Kremlin’s worldview. She is expected to be challenged on those views during confirmation hearings, where her support among even some top Republicans is not guaranteed.
She has expressed skepticism of intelligence agencies and has long advocated against foreign interventions, previously calling her critics “warmongers.”
Several of her former aides told ABC News last year that she was a regular consumer of Russian news site RT, including “long after” they advised her it wasn’t a credible source of information. The Trump transition team called their allegations “false
Opinion
Tue, January 21, 2025
Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images
Tulsi Gabbard made hundreds of thousands of dollars from Republican-friendly media and advocacy groups in 2024, according to a personal disclosure.
While canvassing the country as a top MAGA surrogate, the former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii earned more than $1.2 million.
That includes nearly $200,000 from her role as a Fox News contributor and nearly $120,000 from the Christian legal advocacy group American Center for Law & Justice, which has steered millions of dollars to a prominent ex-Trump lawyer who defended the president at his 2020 impeachment trial.
Gabbard, President Donald Trump’s nominee for director of national intelligence, earned $80,000 in total from five addresses given to local Republican Party chapters. That made up just over half of the $170,000 she earned from speaking engagements, which included an address to the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Gabbard, who left the Democratic Party in 2022, surprised Trump at at an October rally by pledging her full MAGA fealty and announcing she had become a Republican.
The Trump nominee also netted an advance of just under $300,000 for her book For Love of Country: Leave the Democrat Party Behind from Skyhorse Publishing.
Other Skyhorse releases include Melania Trump’s memoir Melania, a hagiographic book on former Trump strategist Steve Bannon, and a conspiratorial book about former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci by Trump nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
On top of her writing, media, and speaking work, Gabbard raked in $373,000 from her company Tulsi Media LLC, the holding company for her podcast The Tulsi Gabbard Show, and $36,000 from her production company TOA Studios LLC.
In a Jan. 15 letter to an ethics official at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Gabbard pledged that Tulsi Media LLC will remain dormant during her tenure as director. She said she would transfer full ownership of TOA Studios to her husband.
The former congresswoman’s disclosure also shows that she poured earnings back into MAGA causes: She holds a stake worth $100,000 to $250,000 in right-wing YouTube competitor Rumble and a $100,000 to $250,000 stake in Elon Musk’s Tesla.
Gabbard pledged to divest her interests in both, as well as holdings in Apple, Bitcoin, and Nvidia, during her appointment as director of national intelligence
According to her filing, she is also the owner of three apartment complexes in Texas, one worth $5 million to $25 million, and two worth between $25 million and $50 million each.
Gabbard has faced scrutiny for meeting with former Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and expressing foreign policy views critics have alleged echo the Kremlin’s worldview. She is expected to be challenged on those views during confirmation hearings, where her support among even some top Republicans is not guaranteed.
She has expressed skepticism of intelligence agencies and has long advocated against foreign interventions, previously calling her critics “warmongers.”
Several of her former aides told ABC News last year that she was a regular consumer of Russian news site RT, including “long after” they advised her it wasn’t a credible source of information. The Trump transition team called their allegations “false
Opinion
Tulsi Gabbard’s Secret Meeting with Syrian Dictator Exposed
Edith Olmsted
THE NEW REPUBLI
Tue, January 21, 2025
Tulsi Gabbard’s team scrambled to minimize the appearance of her 2017 meeting with former Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.
Donald Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence has repeatedly come under fire for her defense of violent authoritarians, including Assad, the brutal dictator who fled Syria for Russia after opposition forces overtook Damascus in December.
Gabbard’s two meetings with Assad during her three-day trip to Syria in January 2017 were not originally on her itinerary delivered to the Ethics Committee. In fact, her schedule included no meetings with any Syrian politician or official.
Apparently, Gabbard’s team was also kept in the dark about her meeting, according to correspondence and files reviewed by the Post. Four staffers involved in discussions about the meeting told the Post that they were surprised to learn that Gabbard had met with the Syrian president at all. One of the staffers, who opposed the meeting, said that they had a difficult time getting Gabbard to provide answers about the details of her schedule.
Gabbard has claimed that while her meeting with Assad was not originally planned, she couldn’t pass up the opportunity once it arose.
One of Gabbard’s meetings with Assad on January 16, 2017, was scheduled to begin at 12:15 p.m. Her next appointment was with Assad’s wife at 3 p.m., according to a timeline reviewed by the Post. This differs from the report delivered to Congress, which detailed that her meeting with Assad had lasted only 90 minutes and her face time with Assad’s wife began at 2 p.m.
Once her staff learned about her meeting, they knew that it looked bad. Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff had warned that her meeting with the dictator seemed “rather long” and urged that “formalities” be skipped to “cut down on the time that it appears you two sat and talked.” Gabbard’s press secretary pitched grouping her meeting with others so it could “appear more like” one of many “protocol meetings.”
One of Gabbard’s former staffers recalled that the ex-representative’s first meeting with Assad was listed as “somewhere around three hours.”
“I remember thinking, ‘That’s insane,’” the staffer told the Post. “What do you talk about for three hours in a supposed unplanned meeting?”
Gabbard’s confirmation hearing is still forthcoming, but this report draws into sharp relief the efforts of nearly 100 former U.S. diplomats and intelligence and national security officials who urged Senate leadership to review the government’s files on Gabbard behind closed doors.
Tue, January 21, 2025
Tulsi Gabbard’s team scrambled to minimize the appearance of her 2017 meeting with former Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.
Donald Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence has repeatedly come under fire for her defense of violent authoritarians, including Assad, the brutal dictator who fled Syria for Russia after opposition forces overtook Damascus in December.
Gabbard’s two meetings with Assad during her three-day trip to Syria in January 2017 were not originally on her itinerary delivered to the Ethics Committee. In fact, her schedule included no meetings with any Syrian politician or official.
Apparently, Gabbard’s team was also kept in the dark about her meeting, according to correspondence and files reviewed by the Post. Four staffers involved in discussions about the meeting told the Post that they were surprised to learn that Gabbard had met with the Syrian president at all. One of the staffers, who opposed the meeting, said that they had a difficult time getting Gabbard to provide answers about the details of her schedule.
Gabbard has claimed that while her meeting with Assad was not originally planned, she couldn’t pass up the opportunity once it arose.
One of Gabbard’s meetings with Assad on January 16, 2017, was scheduled to begin at 12:15 p.m. Her next appointment was with Assad’s wife at 3 p.m., according to a timeline reviewed by the Post. This differs from the report delivered to Congress, which detailed that her meeting with Assad had lasted only 90 minutes and her face time with Assad’s wife began at 2 p.m.
Once her staff learned about her meeting, they knew that it looked bad. Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff had warned that her meeting with the dictator seemed “rather long” and urged that “formalities” be skipped to “cut down on the time that it appears you two sat and talked.” Gabbard’s press secretary pitched grouping her meeting with others so it could “appear more like” one of many “protocol meetings.”
One of Gabbard’s former staffers recalled that the ex-representative’s first meeting with Assad was listed as “somewhere around three hours.”
“I remember thinking, ‘That’s insane,’” the staffer told the Post. “What do you talk about for three hours in a supposed unplanned meeting?”
Gabbard’s confirmation hearing is still forthcoming, but this report draws into sharp relief the efforts of nearly 100 former U.S. diplomats and intelligence and national security officials who urged Senate leadership to review the government’s files on Gabbard behind closed doors.
No comments:
Post a Comment