Follow us on social

Tulsi Gabbard confirmed as Trump’s Director of National Intelligence

Tulsi Gabbard confirmed as Trump’s Director of National Intelligence

This victory over her detractors is seen as a win for restrainers

Reporting | QiOSK

The Senate just confirmed Tulsi Gabbard as President Trump’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI), with the Senate giving President Trump and Tulsi this important victory despite her tumultuous nomination fight.

The final vote was 52-48 mostly along party lines, with exactly one Republican — Sen. Mitch McConnell — voting in opposition.

This morning's confirmation came after 30 hours of post-cloture debate, but in the end, she prevailed, ending months of criticism, including attacks from people like Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), who said she was “likely a Russian asset” and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claiming that “she’s the favorite of the Russians.”

After some speculation that key Republicans would break against her, it turned out they provided the unity Gabbard needed to prevail — and it was not necessary, as with DoD Secretary Pete Hesgeth’s vote, to bring Vice President J.D. Vance in for the tie-breaker.

“As she brings independent thinking and necessary oversight to her new role, I am counting on her to ensure the safety and civil liberties of American citizens remain rigorously protected,” said Representative Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), once thought of as wobbly, ahead of Gabbard’s nomination.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) also threw her support behind Gabbard. She was one of the three GOP Senators who voted against Hegseth’s confirmation (along with Murkowski and McConnell (R - Ky). She had previously complained that there were “a lot of obvious issues” with Gabbard’s nomination, including Gabbard’s past statements against section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The law allows the federal government to collect intelligence information from non-Americans without warrant, but the ACLU and other organizations have scrutinized it for its potential to capture Americans’ communications, violating the 4th amendment.

Additionally, some were concerned about Gabbard’s previous support for whistleblower Edward Snowden. She previously sponsored a resolution calling for Snowden’s charges to be dropped and, on Joe Rogan’s podcast, commented that “if it wasn’t for Snowden, the American people would never have learned the NSA was collecting phone records and spying on Americans.”

Notably, during her Senate hearings, Tulsi would not call Snowden a traitor when prompted. However, she said that his actions "harmed our national security" and "revealed illegal and unconstitutional government programs that conducted mass surveillance of millions of Americans' data." She conceded that Snowden should have brought his concerns to the proper channels rather than leaking his findings to the media.

Most Republicans had vocalized support for Gabbard all along. Senator Rand Paul (R - Ky) was outspoken in his endorsement, “It’s time to put the intelligence community on notice: Reform is not just necessary — it’s here. I proudly support Tulsi Gabbard.”


Top Photo: Former Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard attends the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC 2024, at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland on Feb. 22, 2024. USA TODAY NETWORK via Reuters Connect
Reporting | QiOSK
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: Inspired by maps via shutterstock.com

How the US could use Iran's uranium enrichment to its own advantage

Middle East

Since mid-April, Iran and the United States held numerous rounds of nuclear negotiations that have made measured progress — until Washington abruptly stated that Iran had no right to enrich uranium. Moreover, 200 members of the U.S. Congress sent president Trump a letter opposing any deal that would allow Iran to retain uranium enrichment capability.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei called U.S. demands “excessive and outrageous” and “nonsense.” Since the beginning of the Iranian nuclear crisis in 2003, Tehran has drawn a clear red line: the peaceful right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is non-negotiable.

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest 3

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.