Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump's pick for director of national intelligence, on Thursday defended her 2017 meeting with former Syrian president Bashar Al Assad and condemned the leadership of Hayat Tahrir Al Sham (HTS), during a contentious confirmation hearing that centred on her track record on the Middle East.
"I shed no tears for the fall of the Assad regime, but today we have an Islamist extremist who is now in charge of Syria," she told the Senate Intelligence Committee. “What truly unsettles my political opponents is I refuse to be their puppet – I have no love for Assad or [former Libyan leader Muammar] Qaddafi or any dictator. I just hate Al Qaeda.
"Syria is now controlled by an Al Qaeda offshoot, HTS, led by an Islamist jihadist who danced in the streets on 9/11, who was responsible for the killing of many American service members."
The Trump nominee is a former Democrat-turned-Republican congresswoman who has been described on Russian television as Moscow's “girlfriend”. Ms Gabbard has frequently parroted pro-Kremlin talking points and has asserted that Mr Al Assad, whose regime was an ally of Russia, is “not an enemy” of Washington.
That position put her at odds with a majority of US politicians, who have condemned the toppled Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons on civilians and crackdowns during the civil war. At her confirmation hearing on Thursday, she said she believed she had shown “good judgement” in taking the trip and claimed she asked Mr Al Assad “tough questions about his own regime's actions, the use of chemical weapons and the brutal tactics that were being used against his own people".
Ms Gabbard told the committee she agrees with assessments that the Assad regime used chemical weapons on its own people, despite having previously expressed doubts about US intelligence assessments. Senator Mark Warner, the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee, accused Ms Gabbard on Thursday of having “repeatedly excused our adversaries of their worst actions”.
She also “rejected the conclusion that Assad used chemical weapons in Syria", Mr Warner added. “I don’t know if your intent in making those statements was to defend those dictators, or if you were simply unaware of the intelligence and how your statements would be perceived.”
The Washington Post recently published reports showing that Ms Gabbard had attempted to hide key details of her Damascus meeting with Mr Al Assad from congressional ethics committees, including making changes to her approved schedule. If confirmed as director of national intelligence, she would come to the job – in which she would oversee 18 agencies with a budget of about $70 billion – with no experience in the field.
It is thought her nomination will be among the most difficult to achieve Senate confirmation. It is also among the cabinet decisions most in line with Mr Trump's Make America Great Again movement's challenge to the US political establishment, after an election that is seen as having been a reckoning for the Democratic Party and mainstream politics.
Ms Gabbard condemned Washington's “weaponisation of intelligence” and decried the invasion of Iraq – which came after a campaign of false claims that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction – as one of the clearest examples of a flawed intelligence apparatus.
“This disastrous decision led to the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers, millions of people in the Middle East, mass migration undermining the security and stability of our European allies, the rise of ISIS, the strengthening of Al Qaeda and other Islamist jihadist groups, and the strengthening of Iran,” she said.
Supportive Republicans on the committee defended Ms Gabbard against accusations of disloyalty to Washington. “No doubt she has some unconventional views, like her criticism of Barack Obama's regime-change interventions in Egypt and Libya. But guess what? I opposed the disastrous interventions in Egypt and Libya as well,” senator Tom Cotton, Republican intelligence committee chairman, said in his opening remarks. “Maybe Washington could use a little more unconventional thinking."
Vice President JD Vance also defended Ms Gabbard's nomination ahead of the Thursday hearing, saying that Mr Trump's more controversial cabinet picks “represent parts of the new coalition in our party”. In a post on X, Mr Vance added: “To say they're unwelcome in the cabinet is to insult those new voters.”
But other Republican figures have criticised her nomination. John Bolton, an anti-Iran hawk who continues to defend Washington's 2003 invasion of Iraq, described her appointment as the “worst appointment in US history”. Mitt Romney, a former Republican senator and the party's candidate for the presidency against Barack Obama in 2012, has described her pro-Russia statements as “treasonous”.
Her positions drew further bipartisan ire during the hearing, particularly when she dodged questions about whether she would pursue warrants against those accused of leaking US intelligence, and her past defence of Edward Snowden.
Inside the hearing room, a number of recognisable figures of the new American right attended in support of Ms Gabbard – including Meghan McCain, the daughter of former Arizona senator and US presidential candidate John McCain.
Demonstrators from CodePink, who have consistently disrupted similar Congressional hearings over Washington's support of Israel during the war in Gaza, sat quietly during Ms Gabbard's hearing in a break from their consistent pattern of interrupting opening statements.
