Scrutiny over director of national intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard’s ties to foreign leaders has led some Democratic lawmakers to express worry over how her potential confirmation could impact trust and the flow of intelligence information between the U.S. and foreign countries.
“I think that people, just in general, tend to be more wary of people who they feel don’t share the same value set that they do,” Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, a Pennsylvania Democrat who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, told NOTUS. “I worry very much that her record would indicate that it would be wise if somebody wouldn’t be as willing to share information with her.”
Sen. Martin Heinrich, a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told NOTUS that intelligence sharing is “one of the issues that we’re certainly concerned about,” although he said it’s too early to tell.
“The concern would be that allies would not be as forthcoming and as cooperative as they have been in the past,” he said.
The full Senate will vote on Gabbard’s confirmation this week after the Senate voted along party lines to move ahead on Monday.
If confirmed, Gabbard would lead an office that routinely shares and receives intelligence on terrorism, cybercrime and other issues from other nations, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. After Donald Trump reportedly revealed classified information to Russia’s foreign minister without permission in 2017, a European official signaled to the Associated Press that his country might stop intelligence sharing with the United States.
Now, some lawmakers told NOTUS they’re concerned a similar situation might play out under Trump 2.0, especially since Gabbard is involved.
A spokesperson for Gabbard did not respond to a request for comment.
Some of the concerns stem from Gabbard’s past travel to Syria, where she met with former President Bashar Al-Assad, and from her elevation of Russian misinformation (including about the existence of U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine). Gabbard’s critics have also raised alarms about Russian state media’s praises of Gabbard.
There are also her stances on intelligence tools. During her time in Congress, Gabbard introduced legislation that attempted to roll back parts of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — a key U.S. intelligence-gathering tool — and opposed other legislation that would have reauthorized the act.
Though she reportedly changed her views on Section 702 of FISA, which allows the U.S. to gather intelligence on foreign nationals living abroad without a warrant, ahead of her confirmation hearing, lawmakers like Sen. Susan Collins and Sen. Mark Warner questioned whether the flip was legitimate. Collins ultimately supported Gabbard in committee and the cloture vote.
Other lawmakers wouldn’t discuss how they think Gabbard will impact the intelligence world but made it clear they think she will.
“Of course,” Sen. Michael Bennet told NOTUS when asked if he thought a Gabbard confirmation would affect intelligence sharing. Asked to elaborate, he simply said, “Thank you.”
Current and former intelligence officials from the U.S. and Europe recently told the Associated Press that there are concerns in the intelligence community about Gabbard and other Trump nominees.
Most intelligence processes and structures fall under the purview of ODNI — including long-lasting partnerships like Five Eyes, the United States’ intelligence collaboration with the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
But any impacts Gabbard has on the intelligence landscape may not be immediate or sweeping. Some of those officials told the AP that these concerns may not actually impact how day-to-day intelligence sharing happens between the U.S. and its allies.
One intelligence expert echoed that sentiment, telling NOTUS that, at least initially, countries that the U.S. participates in intelligence sharing won’t make immediate judgments based on Gabbard or other political figures, but rather, “just be cautious because they don’t know what’s going on.”
Not every intelligence-sharing decision or process is dictated by the director of national intelligence, said Daniel Byman, a former U.S. intelligence community analyst who works at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Some day-to-day processes are insulated within different agencies or services and involve “lots of different actors” outside the administration.
“Europeans are tremendously concerned about the threat from Russia, and they will be cautious about sharing information because of Gabbard’s support for Russia,” Byman told NOTUS. “There will just be a general wait and see period where they’re trying to figure out, you know, what her actual views are, how this affects their job.”
Sen. Ron Wyden, who voted against Gabbard’s nomination in the intelligence committee, said that he doesn’t think her previous opposition to intelligence gathering under FISA Section 702 will be contrary to facilitating intelligence gathering and sharing in her potential role as DNI.
“I’m making the case that today, security- and liberty-smart policies are not mutually exclusive,” Wyden said. “You can have both, and I hope to be able to talk to her more about that in the future.”
—
Shifra Dayak is a NOTUS reporter and an Allbritton Journalism Institute fellow.