[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S843-S845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Tulsi Gabbard

  Mr. President, as you know, the Director of National Intelligence is 
a very critical position. The Director is the primary intelligence 
officer serving the President. She or he is tasked with managing 
America's 18 intelligence community Agencies and more than $100 
billion--$100 billion--in the national and military intelligence 
program budgets. It is an awesome responsibility.
  The DNI also has access to information about literally the most 
sensitive programs within the U.S. Government. These programs are so 
sensitive that most Members of Congress and Senators are not briefed 
about them, including even rank-and-file members of the Intelligence 
Committees. That alone indicates the magnitude of this responsibility.
  And my view, on the basis of everything I have seen, is that the 
nominee will put loyalty to Donald Trump first. And my apprehension is 
that, if there is information that he does not want or wants it 
interpreted a certain way, there will be excessive deference to the 
pressures that the President has shown he has the capacity and the 
inclination to exert.
  Also, in the hearings, Ms. Gabbard did not reflect independent 
thoughts about the security of issues like Taiwan, the territorial 
integrity of Ukraine, nor the endless ongoing theft of U.S. data by the 
Chinese Government. She was asked, quite rightly: Where are you on 
this? What should we be doing?
  She indicated she would leave that up to Donald Trump.
  Now, I get it that, as someone who is serving the President, it is 
ultimately his decision. But a person who is in the highest level of 
national security, I would expect, would have opinions from prior 
experience, and Ms. Gabbard did not disclose what those opinions were 
at all.
  My concern, as well, is that Ms. Gabbard does not have the sober 
experience where it is needed most. We are a few weeks into the second 
term of President Trump, and there is an immense amount of disruption. 
And depending on the point of view, disruption is a good thing. I 
actually see the argument for it. But what I am seeing is that it is 
done in such a meat-cleaver way that it is much more about destruction.
  And I want to make certain that whoever is the Director of National 
Intelligence has the experience and the credibility within the 
intelligence community to defend the legitimate role that that 
intelligence community plays in our national security.
  Ms. Gabbard has maintained a security clearance for many years. 
However, this job is much more than about having had a security 
clearance. It is about judgment and character and integrity that must 
go along with that. You are required to form a clear-eyed policy 
position free of politics and not just give the seal of approval to 
absolve poor judgment. That is a very, very challenging task for a 
person who serves in the Trump administration.

  I have also been concerned about some of the judgment calls that Ms. 
Gabbard has made, refusing to acknowledge what we all know: Edward 
Snowden broke his oath to protect classified information. He betrayed 
the trust given to him and every other American who holds a security 
clearance. By the way, Mr. Snowden had a whistleblower protocol he 
could have followed but chose not to. People's lives were put in 
jeopardy.
  Mr. Snowden, as you know, intentionally gathered and deliberately 
walked out the door with more than 1.5 million classified files. He 
went to China and eventually found safe harbor in Russia.
  Also, I have some concern about where Ms. Gabbard is getting her 
news. I have grave concerns that giving access to our Nation's most 
tightly held secrets to an individual who has amplified Russian talking 
points--and that is the spread of misinformation; that is what Russia 
does--and who watches Russia state-owned TV, which is a propaganda 
organization--I have concerns about that, as well as the trip to Syria 
to see Bashar al-Assad who was in the process of murdering his own 
people.
  Of course, Ms. Gabbard said she was skeptical that his government was 
responsible for the 2017 chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of 
Syrians. Our intelligence community was not skeptical about that. Both 
sides of the aisle hold our national security in high regard, as you 
do, Mr. President, and I do, as well.
  On the basis of the lack of experience, the questionable judgment, 
lack of confidence that I think many of us have in the capacity of this 
person to be the Director of National Intelligence, I urge that we vote 
no on her nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
join a number of my colleagues because of my concern for the national 
security of the United States.
  Whether it is a terror attack, a cyber attack from a nonstate actor, 
whether it is a threat from Russia or China or Iran, we in the United 
States are the targets of foreign adversaries every single day.
  But thanks to our intelligence community and the thousands of 
Americans who dedicate their lives to our security, we are safe. These 
brave men and women are counting on us to have their backs, which is 
why the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard is so concerning. Our adversaries 
will be thrilled if we confirm Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National 
Intelligence--none more so than Russian President Vladimir Putin.
  Ms. Gabbard has not hidden her positive views of Russia and President 
Putin. While Ukrainians fight valiantly to protect their homeland and 
defend freedom and democracy, Tulsi Gabbard cozies up to Putin and 
publicly defends Russia's brutal invasion. The former Congresswoman has 
parroted Russian propaganda, saying that the war could have been 
avoided if NATO and the Biden administration had ``simply acknowledged 
Russia's legitimate security concerns.''
  We know that the nominee is problematic when the Kremlin has such 
nice things to say about her. On November 17, 2024, a major Russian 
state-controlled news agency called Tulsi Gabbard ``superwoman'' and 
noted her past appearances on Russian TV. I don't relish the idea of 
America's Director of National Intelligence, a role that includes such 
sensitive responsibilities as producing the President's

[[Page S844]]

daily brief and setting U.S. policy for intelligence-sharing with 
foreign entities--I don't appreciate the fact that she is called 
``superwoman'' by a mouthpiece for the Kremlin.
  Not only does Putin have kind words for Ms. Gabbard, but they also 
share mutual friends, namely ousted Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. 
Since her clandestine meeting with Mr. Assad in 2017, a visit that took 
place while she was serving in Congress, former Congresswoman Gabbard 
has faced numerous questions about why she went to Syria and arranged 
this meeting in the first place.

  She has answered none of those questions, nor has she provided any 
substantive details on her conversation with Assad. In fact, Ms. 
Gabbard has repeatedly refused to call Assad what he is, and that is an 
enemy of the United States, a brutal dictator who is responsible for 
the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians--Assad, who is Putin's 
best buddy in the Middle East, Assad who is backed by Iran, whose 
regime openly seeks to undermine and destroy American interests and 
values worldwide--this is the person who co-Presidents Musk and Trump 
want to lead our intelligence Agency, to spearhead our national 
security operations?
  Well, that doesn't make me comfortable sleeping at night. To talk 
amiably about a brutal dictator who is openly opposed to American 
interests and human rights, a dictator like Assad--and like Putin, for 
that matter--shows, at best, a lack of judgment and, at worst, 
allegiance to our adversaries.
  And even in cases of proven espionage against the American 
intelligence community, the very organization she seeks to lead, Tulsi 
Gabbard instead has sided with criminals. Of course, I am speaking 
about her support for Edward Snowden. In 2020, while she was a Member 
of the U.S. House of Representatives, she introduced a resolution 
suggesting that the Federal Government should drop all charges against 
Edward Snowden. There was only one other Member who cosponsored this 
resolution, and that was former Congressman Matt Gaetz.
  In 2025, Ms. Gabbard still refuses to call Snowden what he is: a 
traitor to the United States. When she was asked about that at her 
hearing, she was given several opportunities to indicate that she 
understood that Edward Snowden is a traitor who put at risk the lives 
of thousands of Americans in the intelligence community. She refused to 
acknowledge that he is a traitor.
  With such a track record, how are we supposed to expect that she will 
properly classify our enemies? How are we to expect that she would 
label Xi Jinping or Kim Jong Un enemies of the United States or simply 
as foreign leaders or as friends? Who knows what Ms. Gabbard will do?
  I think there is a stark difference between our adversaries who want 
to undermine the United States and those who are our allies. It doesn't 
appear that Tulsi Gabbard understands the difference.
  How can the men and women of the intelligence community trust that 
Ms. Gabbard will protect their secrets; that she will protect our 
secrets, the secrets of the United States? How many Russians are going 
to risk their lives to pass along information to our intelligence 
officers if they are worried that Ms. Gabbard will sell them out? How 
much will our allies in NATO and the Indo-Pacific share with Ms. 
Gabbard in charge?
  The work of American covert operations and intelligence-gathering is 
based on one central principle, and that is trust. I wouldn't trust 
Tulsi Gabbard any further than I can throw her.
  I think this Chamber faces a choice. We can choose to defend 
America's national security and keep our promise to our constituents to 
protect their lives and safety and their interests, or we can choose to 
give a gift to Vladimir Putin and our adversaries, to usher them into 
the inner halls of the American intelligence system.
  I know which choice I intend to make. I intend to vote no on Tulsi 
Gabbard, and I hope that my colleagues, particularly those across the 
aisle--at least some of them--will have the courage to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The Senator from Nevada.
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, every Member of this body is sworn to 
protect our national security and safety and the well-being of the 
American people. There is no more important responsibility for Congress 
to fulfill than this.
  Senators take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States 
against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And when the American people 
go to sleep at night, they rest assured that our homeland will be kept 
safe.
  As Senators, we play a key role in making sure that the men and women 
in charge of our Nation's security--well, that they are up to the task, 
that they are experienced, that they are qualified, that they are 
prepared. These are jobs with enormous responsibility. There is zero--
zero--room for failure here. When unqualified or inexperienced 
candidates make mistakes in these jobs, often the result is that 
innocent people get hurt and in some cases die.

  That is why the Senate's confirmation process is just so important--
because the stakes are so high, because there is no room for error when 
it comes to those who are placed in national security roles.
  I take this aspect of my job incredibly seriously. Our intelligence 
community is made up of courageous men and women who collect and 
analyze information on our threats from around the globe. They are an 
integral part of our Nation's defense.
  The Director of National Intelligence oversees and compiles 
intelligence from domestic, from military, from foreign sources for the 
President, who then uses it to make life-or-death decisions. The 
Director is a direct line from our intelligence community to the 
President. That is why this position needs to be filled by an 
experienced and trustworthy candidate--key qualities that Tulsi Gabbard 
does not have.
  At a time of rising global threats, having Tulsi Gabbard serving in 
this role would make America less safe. I want to say that again. It 
would make us less safe--full stop. Our allies are dumbfounded. And our 
adversaries? Well, in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and all over the world, 
they are laughing at us. They are laughing at the idea that the United 
States of America would weaken its national security by placing someone 
so deeply unqualified in such a critical role for our safety, for our 
security. Our adversaries? Well, they are overjoyed that they are going 
to have an ally leading the American intelligence community.
  My concerns are not political. After all, Ms. Gabbard and I used to 
serve in Congress together, in the same caucus, when she represented a 
district from Hawaii as a Democrat. My concerns are that she not only 
lacks the qualifications needed but that she has also peddled talking 
points straight from the Kremlin.
  Think about it. Tulsi Gabbard has never worked in intelligence 
before. As a Member of the House of Representatives, she didn't even 
serve on the House Select Committee on Intelligence. During her time in 
the House, Ms. Gabbard actually voted against--she voted against--
critical national security-related legislation, like increased funding 
for preventing terrorism in high-density, high-threat level urban areas 
like my city of Las Vegas. She voted against all of that security for 
Nevada.
  This funding was actually pursued by former Nevada Congressman Joe 
Heck, who is a Republican, and it is something I have continued working 
to secure here in the Senate. Yet Tulsi Gabbard voted against this 
bipartisan proposal to protect our cities from terrorism.
  She was the only member of the House Armed Services Committee to vote 
against the National Defense Authorization Act every year during 
markup.
  As concerning as her lack of experience and tendency to vote against 
our security are, Ms. Gabbard's history of cozying up to America's 
adversaries is far, far more troubling. Her actions and words suggest 
that she has been directly influenced by foreign propaganda, whether 
that comes from Russia, from Syria, or other brutal dictatorships.
  This isn't just me saying this; it is the view of many of Ms. 
Gabbard's former staff members during her time

[[Page S845]]

here on Capitol Hill. We have public reporting that states that 
``[f]ormer advisers to Gabbard suggested that her views on Russia and 
its polarizing leader, Vladimir Putin, have been shaped . . . by her 
unorthodox media consumption habits. . . . Three former aides said 
Gabbard . . . regularly read and shared articles from the Russian news 
site RT--formerly known as Russia Today--which the U.S. intelligence 
community characterized in 2017 as `Kremlin's principal international 
propaganda outlet.' ''
  Is this who Donald Trump wants to lead America's intelligence 
community? Is this who he wants in a prominent national security role--
someone who is so easily swayed by foreign propaganda?
  It is clear that she has taken this propaganda and disinformation to 
heart. Just look at her justification of Russia's brutal invasion of 
Ukraine, for which she did not blame Vladimir Putin, who--let's be 
clear--is entirely responsible for the invasion. Instead, Ms. Gabbard 
has parroted Putin's talking points and placed blame on the United 
States and on NATO for Russia's vile assault upon the Ukrainian people.
  We can also look at her attempts to give cover to Syria's former 
dictator, Bashar al-Assad, who used chemical weapons on his own 
people--killing kids, killing babies--killing babies in his own attempt 
to hold on to power. Ms. Gabbard even went to Syria to buddy up with 
Assad. She then came back to the United States to defend his killing of 
innocent men, women, and children--those babies he killed--to hang on 
to power. It is sickening, actually. It is a betrayal of our country's 
values.
  Time and time again, Ms. Gabbard has rejected the findings and 
conclusions of our own intelligence officials and has instead chosen 
to, well, cozy up to dictators and our adversaries. She did so again in 
her defense of Edward Snowden, a man who committed treason against the 
United States of America by leaking highly classified information that 
jeopardized our national security, the safety of our troops, our men 
and women in uniform, who take an oath to serve and protect us every 
day. She jeopardized the clandestine intelligence operatives who are 
out there, working behind the scenes, again, to keep us safe and secure 
every day.
  After committing these serious crimes against the United States, Mr. 
Snowden fled to Russia in his continued attempt to escape justice. 
Those weren't the actions of a whistleblower; they were the actions of 
a traitor to the United States of America--a traitor whom Tulsi Gabbard 
has repeatedly defended.
  Because of these incidents and so many more, America's allies are 
rightfully concerned about what Tulsi Gabbard would do if confirmed to 
lead our intelligence community. In fact, there have been reports that 
if Ms. Gabbard is confirmed, our allies might stop sharing crucial 
information with us in order to protect themselves, to protect their 
own country, to protect the people they love.
  So think about that. If our allies no longer share intelligence with 
us, think about the damage that does to our national security, to our 
safety, to our men and women in uniform, to our operatives around the 
world, and to each and every one of us here in the United States of 
America. It doesn't make us safer, I can tell you that. Our allies do 
not trust her, and neither should we.
  I urge my colleagues to review Ms. Gabbard's recent hearing before 
the Select Committee on Intelligence. In response to almost every 
question, Tulsi Gabbard avoided providing any real answer, whether it 
came from a Democrat or a Republican. She simply dodged the questions 
over and over and over. That is not leadership. This is not an example 
of someone who is qualified, and this is not a candidate who will keep 
America safe.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to join me in listening to common 
sense, in thinking about our men and women who serve, in thinking about 
folks around the globe, and in thinking about everyone here in America 
and to reject this clearly unqualified and dangerous nominee.
  It doesn't have to be this way. Let's have President Trump nominate 
someone else we can agree is qualified for this critical and 
consequential role and who has our Nation's best interests in their 
heart. Tulsi Gabbard is not that person. The safety and well-being of 
our country depend on having a qualified nominee.
  Again, I urge Republicans to join us--to reject Tulsi Gabbard--and to 
put someone up who has the heart and experience to do this important 
job.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.