Senate confirmation hearings Thursday for two top intelligence jobs revealed a growing gap between Trump administration nominees and Democratic lawmakers, not just in terms of policy, but in perceptions of reality. Arguments about facts and history crowded out discussion of how the United States intelligence community should adapt to the threats posed by China, Russia, and other adversaries.
Former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, nominated for director of the Office of National Intelligence, and former Trump official Kash Patel, nominated for FBI director, bristled at hearing their own statements read back to them—statements threatening or insulting the press, lawmakers and other public servants in Patel’s case, or justifying the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin in Gabbard’s.
One particular moment illustrated how Gabbard’s views of reality on intelligence matters have diverged from the community she would be leading. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., asked her to explain statements expressing doubt about U.S. intelligence assessments on the Syrian government’s chemical weapon attack in April 2017—an attack that killed nearly 90 Syrians, including as many as 30 children. The first Trump administration responded to that attack by targeting Syrian chemical weapons sites with U.S. missiles.
On Thursday, Gabbard defended her 2017 statement, saying, “There was conflicting information that came from the UN’s office on the prohibition of chemical weapons inspectors as well as an MIT Professor Ted Postol.”
Kelly pointed out that Postol appeared on various Russian television broadcasts to push his theories—theories the U.S. intelligence community discredited.
“You started from a place of doubting the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community and then you sought out information that confirmed your viewpoint,” he said, and described as “concerning” the fact that Gabbard would “not apply the same skepticism to information that came from sympathizers of Russia and Assad.”
Senators also pressed Gabbard on policy actions she’s taken, such as her 2020 sponsoring of a resolution urging then-President Trump to pardon former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who stole millions of classified documents and then fled to Russia. At the hearing, Gabbard made no attempt to justify the resolution, and would not answer questions about it directly, though she described Snowden’s actions as illegal.
“I will be responsible for protecting our nation’s secrets,” she said, promising to take steps to “prevent another Snowden-like leak.” However, she repeatedly refused to describe Snowden as a “traitor,” despite being urged to do so.
A more tense exchange occurred when Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., asked Gabbard to defend her February 2022 statements blaming Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine on NATO expansion—a view refuted by all NATO allies, Ukrainians, and the U.S. intelligence community. Putin himself even contradicted that idea at the time of the invasion, when he described his motivation as a need to correct the “historical mistake” of allowing Ukraine to gain independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Bennet’s voice was fiery: “You basically said that Putin was justified in rolling over the peaceful border of Ukraine, the first time since World War II that a free nation had been invaded by a totalitarian state! And you were there at 11:30 p.m. that night to say that you were with them, not us!”
Gabbard appeared annoyed and urged the senator to look at the statements in the “wider context” of her full remarks. She later expressed offense when asked whether Russia might get favorable treatment in U.S. intelligence assessments, and she promised to provide a “full intelligence picture so that you all can make the best informed policy decisions for the safety of the American people.”
Patel, in his hearing, also tried to distance himself from previous statements that have described the press, former Trump officials, and Democratic law makers as a malevolent “deep state.”
In one exchange, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked Patel about specific statements he made on podcasts and at public events. When he said he did not recall his specific words, she entered his recorded statements into the record.
But the Patel who appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee today sounded very different from the man who made those remarks. “I have no interest, no desire, and will not, If confirmed, go backwards,” he said. “There will be no politicization at the FBI. There will be no retributive actions taken by any FBI.”
Patel did find support from Republican lawmakers on the judiciary committee for his role in attempting to discredit the FBI investigation into Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., as he has done previously, referred to the premise of the investigation as a “hoax” and praised Patel for “exposing” it.
That reading of history stands in contrast to other facts. In December 2019, the FBI Inspector General determined that the bureau’s investigation was legitimate, despite errors FBI officials made in obtaining FISA warrants. And the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee and the Office of Director of National Intelligence both released reports detailing extensive efforts by the Russian government to influence U.S. presidential elections.
A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Donald Trump “welcomed” Russian interference efforts and may have committed obstruction 10 times in refusing to answer questions—though Mueller ultimately decided against trying to prosecute a sitting U.S. president for obstruction.
Gabbard and Patel both calmly reassured senators that they would use their authorities and tools lawfully and support the intelligence and law enforcement officials working under them. But senators paid relatively little attention to Patel’s actual plans for the FBI, which include closing the FBI headquarters in Washington D.C. and relocating FBI officers there to other locations around the country. It was a pledge Patel repeated Thursday.
Both nominees expressed a desire to reform Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which covers things like surveillance warrants for Americans caught up in investigations relating to foreign individuals.
“702 is a critical tool, and I’m proud of the reforms that have been implemented, and I’m proud to work with Congress moving forward to implement more reforms,” Patel said.
It’s not clear whether either nominee will be confirmed, but one Senate staffer told Defense One that Gabbard likely does not have enough Republican support to get the job.
