In anticipation of the imminent formation of his government, Donald Trump has appointed Tulsi Gabbard as the head of U.S. intelligence. A former soldier and defector from the Democratic Party, Gabbard is known for her controversial positions in favor of Russia and Syria. If confirmed by the Senate, her appointment could mark a turning point in the way the United States manages its national security.
A controversial appointment
Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination to lead U.S. intelligence, a key position for national security, has raised significant concerns. A former soldier and defector from the Democratic Party, she is known for her critical stance on U.S. military interventionism. She is also known for her controversial views on Russia. These positions have raised fears about the politicization of U.S. intelligence under her leadership. The consequences of such politicization would be severe for the objectivity of the analysis and decisions made by the White House. Her ties with certain foreign leaders, including Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad (the Syrian president), also fuel doubts about her ability to manage such a sensitive role.
At 43, she has no prior experience in intelligence, which raises further questions about her appointment. As Director of National Intelligence (DNI), her job would be to coordinate the 18 U.S. intelligence agencies. Once coordination is achieved, she would need to inform the president daily about global threats. This position was created following the September 11, 2001 attacks to address communication gaps between different agencies that had prevented the detection of terrorist plots at that time. If her nomination is confirmed by the Senate, Tulsi Gabbard would have to assume this major responsibility, a significant challenge given her political positions, which are unusual for this role.
A strategic and political role
The role of Director of National Intelligence is both administrative and political. The DNI ensures the coordination of intelligence agencies and ensures they effectively share information. “It is an administrative role to ensure the agencies communicate with each other, that they coordinate, and that there are rules for analysis,” explains Mathew Burrows, a former CIA official. The DNI is also responsible for providing the president with a comprehensive view of the international situation, a crucial role for strategic decision-making. This position is therefore extremely influential, and the choice of person for the role has significant implications for how intelligence is interpreted and used.
Tulsi Gabbard’s opinions, her recurrent criticism of intelligence agencies, and her geopolitical positions in favor of controversial regimes have raised concerns about the independence of national intelligence. While her predecessors also formed teams close to the White House, they did not raise similar concerns about the politicization of their role. However, Gabbard could represent a turning point in the way intelligence is used by the administration, particularly through her relationship with Donald Trump. The latter, in particular, seems to want to avoid the conflicts he had with intelligence agencies during his first term and may see Gabbard as a political ally to strengthen his control over sensitive information.
Controversial positions
Tulsi Gabbard’s public positions have fueled numerous controversies. For example, she expressed concerns about Ukraine’s potential NATO membership, describing these concerns as “legitimate” from Russia’s point of view. She also met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2017, which provoked a violent reaction from her critics, who accused her of supporting a regime responsible for war crimes. During her time as a congresswoman, she criticized what she saw as an overly interventionist U.S. foreign policy, labeling American political elites as war-hungry. These positions, often seen as pro-Russian or pro-Syrian, have been poorly received by many observers, who wonder if Gabbard can assume such a crucial role without compromising U.S. security interests.
For her detractors, these positions raise questions about her priorities as the future Director of National Intelligence. Tom Nichols, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, argues that her nomination “will be a threat to U.S. security,” emphasizing that someone with her views should not have access to strategic information. The concern is that her personal opinions may influence the objectivity of intelligence analysis and that she may prioritize her political beliefs over national interests. This could undermine the intelligence agencies’ ability to provide clear and independent assessments of international threats.
The complex relationship with Donald Trump
This nomination comes in a particular political context, that of the end of Donald Trump’s first term. He has had several frictions with his intelligence officials, often labeling them as “naive” and “incompetent.” In 2018, his Defense Secretary, General James Mattis, resigned over differences about the policy of troop withdrawal from Syria. Trump has also frequently attacked intelligence agencies, accusing them of orchestrating a “witch hunt” over his ties to Russia. By appointing Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump is making a security choice. He seems to want to avoid further confrontations with intelligence agencies. He may even want to strengthen executive control over these strategic agencies.
The link between Gabbard and Trump could therefore play a key role in the evolution of U.S. intelligence under her leadership. As the person responsible for the daily briefings, Gabbard could have considerable influence over the information presented to the president. Some experts, such as Mathew Burrows, express concerns about the politicization of intelligence analysis under Gabbard’s leadership. Her worldview could alter the administration’s priorities. “Gabbard has the power to extract analysis that serves her decisions,” warns Burrows. The issue of intelligence agencies’ independence thus arises. They could find themselves in a difficult position if they are forced to serve political interests rather than provide objective assessments.
Fear of politicization and witch hunts
Another feared consequence of this appointment is the potential politicization of national intelligence. Intelligence agents, who are trained to serve the state regardless of its leader, could find themselves under pressure to tailor their analyses to the political expectations of the White House. This situation would create an atmosphere of distrust and surveillance within the agencies, where some agents, particularly those who took positions during the elections, could fear retaliation or a “witch hunt.” According to Alexandre Papaemmanuel, a professor at Sciences Po, it is possible that Trump seeks to “flip the table,” disrupting the established codes and practices of intelligence.
Gabbard’s introduction into this role could symbolize a radical shift in how sensitive information is used by the presidency. Trump, who has already disrupted many political and media conventions, may want to apply this same logic to intelligence management. If Gabbard is confirmed, she could face an intelligence community torn between loyalty to the state and increased political pressures. The real consequences of her appointment will only become clear through how she executes her role, and whether she can reconcile her personal beliefs with the independence required of the Director of National Intelligence.