Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation hearing to become Director of National Intelligence took a dramatic turn Thursday, as Republican senators expressed alarm over her refusal to denounce Edward Snowden’s actions as treasonous. The former National Security Agency contractor’s theft of over a million classified documents and subsequent leak to the Russian government has long been a divisive issue, but Gabbard’s hesitation to unequivocally condemn him has raised serious concerns among Senate Republicans.
During the hearing, GOP senators repeatedly pressed Gabbard to call Snowden a “traitor” and to acknowledge the harm he caused to U.S. national security. However, the nominee refused to give a definitive answer, raising the specter of her confirmation being derailed.
“People are holding their cards pretty close to the vest, but that nomination is in trouble,” one anonymous Republican senator told reporters, indicating the brewing tension over Gabbard’s stance on Snowden. Another GOP senator confirmed that the refusal to address Snowden’s actions as treason has sparked significant debate among Republicans on the Intelligence Committee.
A critical moment came when Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) directly asked Gabbard whether she considered Snowden a “traitor.” Gabbard avoided the question, instead saying, “I’m focused on the future and how we can prevent something like this from happening again,” referring to Snowden’s leaks. Lankford, who had previously expressed support for Gabbard, expressed surprise after the hearing, calling the question “not a hard question” and noting that it should be “universally accepted” that stealing classified documents and passing them to a foreign power, especially Russia, is a “traitorous act.”
Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), another key Republican vote, seemed equally frustrated when Gabbard refused to acknowledge that Snowden’s actions had damaged U.S. national security. When asked about a bipartisan House Intelligence Committee report that said Snowden’s leaks harmed U.S. military and defense programs, Gabbard merely stated that Snowden “broke the law,” and again focused on “preventing future leaks” rather than addressing the specific harm done.
Young also confronted Gabbard over her past support for a pardon for Snowden, a position that has drawn sharp criticism. “When we find Americans have shared sensitive designs about military technology or plans with a foreign government, we rightfully throw the book at them,” Young said, expressing frustration with Gabbard’s continued defense of Snowden’s actions.
As the hearing continued, concerns mounted that Gabbard’s refusal to label Snowden’s conduct as treasonous could jeopardize her chances of securing confirmation. “Do you think you would be received by intelligence professionals, analysts, and the wider intelligence community when you’ve taken such positions on Snowden?” Young asked pointedly. His line of questioning reflected a broader Republican anxiety about Gabbard’s suitability to lead the nation’s intelligence operations, especially given her previous remarks on civil liberties and surveillance.
Although some Republican leaders, like Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), downplayed the significance of the exchange, acknowledging that “everyone will come to their own conclusions,” the response from key figures like Lankford and Young suggested that Gabbard’s nomination could be in serious trouble. The GOP holds a narrow majority on the Intelligence Committee, meaning the defection of just one member could block her confirmation.
In contrast, some senators expressed more cautious optimism. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), another undecided vote, appeared satisfied with Gabbard’s answers on whether she would advocate for a pardon for Snowden, noting that Gabbard had made it clear she would not. However, Collins raised concerns about Gabbard’s stance on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which authorizes expanded surveillance powers and accounts for much of the intelligence presented to the president daily. Gabbard’s somewhat ambiguous response to Section 702 also left some questions unresolved.
The intense scrutiny over Gabbard’s refusal to condemn Snowden underscores the political divide over her nomination. Some Republicans have made it clear that they are troubled by her reluctance to unequivocally call Snowden a traitor, with some suggesting that this could be a disqualifying factor for someone seeking to oversee U.S. intelligence operations.
“If you’re a Republican on the Intelligence Committee and you have any respect for the Intelligence Committee, you can’t overlook someone who won’t denounce Snowden as a traitor,” said one Democratic lawmaker, who spoke candidly about the concerns among GOP senators. “There’s a real fear that she can’t be trusted to lead the intelligence community.”
With Republicans divided and growing skepticism from key members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, it remains to be seen whether Gabbard can secure the votes needed for confirmation. The coming weeks will be critical as lawmakers continue to debate whether her leadership of the U.S. intelligence community would be in the national interest.
