Tulsi Gabbard, the Hawaii Democrat-turned-Republican, faces a tense confirmation hearing this week as intelligence hawks raise concerns over her skepticism of surveillance practices and Democrats push narratives of pro-Kremlin sympathies.

A stalwart privacy advocate and social moderate, Gabbard unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, earning attention for her exchanges with former Vice President Kamala Harris. She later left the party and helped President Donald Trump prepare for his own debate with Harris. Gabbard joined the Republicans during the 2024 campaign and received Trump’s nod to head the nation’s intelligence apparatus.

Her nomination received cheers from privacy advocates and MAGA-aligned critics of the intelligence community, many of whom hope she will work alongside FBI Director-designate Kash Patel to substantially uproot the nation’s intelligence apparatus and end practices that raise serious questions about politicization in the agencies.

The Senate Intelligence Committee will question Gabbard on Thursday in what is sure to be a contentious row. The panel is stacked with intelligence hawks, including some Republicans who have expressed public concerns over her past opposition to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows for the warrantless surveillance of foreigners abroad. 

With the confirmation of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth concluded, Gabbard’s confirmation appears poised to mark the next battle between Trump’s MAGA disruptors and the old guard GOP of the Washington establishment.

Surveillance powers

Gabbard has long been critical of Section 702, sharing the concerns of conservative Republicans on the Judiciary Committee that it allows for the collection of information on Americans in the process. An American speaking with a foreigner under surveillance, for instance, would see their half of the conversation swept up in intelligence gathering and ultimately entered into the Section 702 intelligence database.

The expiration of Section 702 led to a dispute between the House GOP Judiciary and Intelligence Committees last year, with the pro-surveillance Intelligence panel winning out and shutting the door on major reform. Gabbard’s opposition to Section 702 was such a point of concern for Republicans that she ultimately reversed her position amid the nomination process.

“Section 702, unlike other FISA authorities, is crucial for gathering foreign intelligence on non-U.S. persons abroad. This unique capability cannot be replicated and must be safeguarded to protect our nation while ensuring the civil liberties of Americans,” she told CNN earlier this month. “If confirmed as DNI, I will uphold Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights while maintaining vital national security tools like Section 702 to ensure the safety and freedom of the American people.”

That about-face could serve to assuage establishment concerns, but she will likely need to persuade Republican members of the panel that she will be able to balance privacy and national security concerns in the post. The 9-8 Republican-led panel includes two potential swing votes: Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine; and Todd Young, Ind; according to The Hill. She is not expected to secure any Democratic support.

Past Assad comments

Gabbard in 2017 visited Syria and met with now-ousted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose regime fell just weeks ago amid a surprise offensive from the Al-Qaeda derivative Tahrir al-Sham. She had previously insisted Assad was not an enemy of the United States and voiced opposition to American intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Gabbard herself is a veteran, having served in Iraq and was awarded the Combat Medical Badge.

On non-intervention, she is well in-line with Trump himself, who called for the U.S. to remain uninvolved in the Syrian conflict and has further pressed for an end to the Ukraine conflict. Assad was a stalwart ally of Russia and Gabbard’s past positions led many Democrats to paint her as a “Russian asset.” Her subsequent alignment with Trump has done little to alleviate Democratic suspicions.

Biden's FBI puts her on "watch list"

But the more influential Republicans appear disinterested in playing along with another “Russia-gate” and Committee Chairman Tom Cotton publicly repudiated such accusations, saying on Monday that “The smears against Tulsi Gabbard—including by Hillary Clinton—are disgraceful. Tulsi served for more than 20 years honorably, she passed every background check, and she's a patriot with integrity. She doesn't deserve to have her integrity impugned.”

Gabbard has continued to serve as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve since 2021. She also served as a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Hawaii from 2013 to 2021.

Of concern to some Democrats are Gabbard’s past issues with federal intelligence due to her foreign travel. She previously went public with allegations that the Biden administration had subjected her to political targeting by placing her on a “watch list.” The New York Times on Tuesday published an article outlining the issue. She was subject to additional security after she attended an event at the Vatican held by a European figure who was on an FBI watch list. 

Also included in the article was an incident in which American intelligence intercepted a call from a member of Hezbollah indicating Gabbard had met with “the boss” during her 2017 trip to Syria, though that figure remains unidentified. Gabbard has denied meeting with anyone from Hezbollah.

A public or private vote?

Gabbard's chances may receive a boost as Trump allies pressure Cotton to hold a public vote on her nomination. The panel does not typically hold open votes, though its members may disclose their own decisions. 

Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk on Tuesday posted that "the vote for Tulsi Gabbard might be done privately in a SCIF [sensitive compartmented information facility] - with the vote tallies kept secret from the American people."

The prospect of a secret ballot in which Republicans with reservations might vote against Trump’s chosen nominee while maintaining privacy has Trump’s supporters livid. Thus far, however, the breakdown of Gabbard’s support remains unclear and will likely not become apparent until the vote. Should she receive the committee’s stamp of approval, she will then face a floor vote in the upper chamber.