Trump’s pick for his National Intelligence director is being grilled by a Senate Committee. This is part of a process to either endorse or reject the candidate. The candidate is Tulsi Gabbard, a former member of Congress.
One sticking point is that Tulsi Gabbard has previously made thoughtful remarks about the Ukraine war. Here is some background, from Newsweek:
In a video message on Twitter in 2022, Gabbard said: Dear Presidents Putin, Zelensky, and Biden. It’s time to put geopolitics aside and embrace the spirit of aloha, respect and love, for the Ukrainian people by coming to an agreement that Ukraine will be a neutral country– no military alliance with NATO or Russia—and therefore alleviate the legitimate security concerns of both US and NATO countries as well as Russia, because there would be no Russian or NATO troops on each other’s non-Baltic borders. This would allow the Ukrainian people to live in peace.” [1]
Gabbard has caused most controversy for her views on Russia and was accused of being a “traitor” after she said that the U.S. had been funding biological laboratories in Ukraine. She said these were being used to conduct research into dangerous pathogens, which bore a resemblance to a Russian conspiracy theory that Ukraine was creating bio weapons. Gabbard had asserted, accurately, that the U.S. funds bio labs in Ukraine, but she did not mention bio weapons labs. [1]
So. She recognises that Russia has legitimate security concerns about developments in NATO. This is so basic it cannot be disputed. The US perennially claims it has legitimate security concerns about developments in countries all around the world. Russia is claiming legitimate security concerns based on the world’s biggest military block originally set up to confront their country (that is the predecessor country, the USSR), now setting up shop in a neighbouring country, which has two live territorial disputes with their country, partly based on the fact that there are millions of ethnic Russians living in that country. It would be hard, if writing a theoretical paper to explain the concept of “legitimate security concerns” to come up with a better example than this real case. If the concept of “legitimate security concerns” even exists (and the US refers to it all the time) then Russia has an exceptionally strong case that this applies in this case.
On the question of the bio-labs in Ukraine. Yes; this story may have been over-played in the Russian media. That said; there are bio-labs in Ukraine. There is US funding. The link suggests that funding to reduce bioweapons stockpiles and to support civilian research is the same. [2] This US Department of Défense statement says “There are no DOD bioweapon labs in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world.” [3] That is careful wording. The fact appears to be that despite a program to eliminate all Soviet bioweapons there are still some left. This is in fact a Défense Department official, head of a Threat Reduction Programme admitting this: “Some labs, he said, may hold pathogen strains left over from the Soviet bioweapons program, preserved in freezers for research purposes.” [4] In addition the civilian research may well be justifiable in terms of managing threats to health in Ukraine, but one can see why Russia might be concerned about, for example, labs working with anthrax in Ukraine. Why would they not be? The US used precisely this justification to launch their attack on Iraq in 2003. So, again Tulsi Gabbard’s comments on the biological programmes in Ukraine seems to be well-founded. Indeed, based on the Newsweek story, her comments simply seem to align with the facts.
What country would not want for its Director of National Intelligence someone who could think rationally and objectively and not be swayed by crude over-simplified political polemic? North Korea? Iraq under Saddam Hussein? The US? Well; it seems certainly the US:
During the hearing, the Colorado senator Michael Bennet attacked Gabbard for a tweet sent out just hours after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in which she said: “This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns.”
While she did not explain those remarks, she did indicate that she had had a change of heart. Asked bluntly who she blamed for the war between Russia and Ukraine, she said: “Putin started the invasion of Ukraine.”
In order to secure her nomination Tulsi Gabbard is being forced to disavow her previous rational statements. (This is just one example. In fact; she is also being attacked for allegedly meeting with Hezbollah and for refusing to provide a sound-bite that Edward Snowden was a traitor). The Senate Committee members doing this are acting as if they are in the medieval age. Loyalty to power and authority trumps reason, precisely the qualities you do not want in your intelligence director.
Notes
- https://www.newsweek.com/what-tulsi-gabbard-has-said-about-russia-ukraine-china-1985839
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/russia-biological-weapon-claim-us-un-ukraine-bio-labs-explainer
- https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/article/2963333/senior-defense-official-holds-an-off-camera-press-briefing/
- https://thebulletin.org/2022/02/us-official-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-risks-release-of-dangerous-pathogens/
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/30/tulsi-gabbard-confirmation-hearing