The sudden fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has brought renewed scrutiny to Tulsi Gabbard’s ties to the deposed dictator, coinciding with a series of meetings with senators to boost her chances of being confirmed as President-elect Donald Trump’s director of national intelligence.
While some senators said they would like to ask Gabbard questions about past comments defending Assad and her 2017 meeting with him in Syria when they meet with her prior to her confirmation hearings, most who spoke to The Dispatch were coy about what the topic of their conversations with Gabbard would be. Even those who tipped their hand did not reveal much.
“I’ll probably ask her what she spoke with Bashar al-Assad about, but that’s about it, and then that doesn’t overly concern me,” said Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
Meanwhile, Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama defended the former Democratic congresswoman’’s 2017 meeting with Assad. “I think it’s good that she’s made contacts like that,” he told The Dispatch. “Everybody says, ‘Why would somebody do that?’ I’d go talk to Putin if I could go talk to him. The more people you know, the better chance you got of understanding the situation.” He also indicated that he would ask Gabbard about her past statements on the Syrian civil war, such as her doubting Assad’s use of chemical weapons on his own people. “We’ll bring all that up,” Tuberville said.
Johnson and Tuberville were exceptions, however, as most of their GOP colleagues offered less-specific statements about Gabbard’s nomination for the role. “I look forward to having a chance to talk to her about what she thinks about how we should handle Syria and what her positions on other foreign policy issues are and how she plans to advise the president,” said Sen. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska. Pressed on whether he would ask Gabbard about her controversial statements, he replied, laughing, “We’ll have lots of conversations about a lot of different things.”
The surprise offensive by Syrian rebels who took control of the capital of Damascus and forced Assad to flee to Russia over the weekend brought even more attention to Gabbard’s record on the Middle Eastern nation, where a civil war erupted in 2011 and has continued at varying levels of intensity in recent years. In addition to meeting with Assad and saying she was “skeptical” of findings that he used chemical weapons on his own civilian population, she also argued in 2019 that he was “not the enemy of the United States because Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States.” Though few Republicans said they had fears about her past actions and remarks, the former congresswoman’s team seemed aware even before the rebel victory that she would need to assuage concerns over them. National Review reported last week that her game plan to reassure senators included stressing the importance of having lines of communication with America’s adversaries and convincing senators that she is not sympathetic to dictators.
Publicly, Gabbard expressed agreement with Trump’s assertion in a Truth Social post that “THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH” Syria and that “THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT.”
“I stand in full support and wholeheartedly agree with the statements that President Trump has made over these last few days with regards to the developments in Syria,” Gabbard told reporters Monday. Asked whether she was able to explain her foreign policy views to senators on Tuesday, she told reporters she was having “great conversations” with those she met with.
One of those people was Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which she’ll appear before next month before the Senate votes up or down on her confirmation. He said Gabbard was “concerned like everybody else” about the situation in Syria. “We walked through several issues,” he told reporters about the Monday meeting. “We spent about an hour and a half together. She was talking me through some of the accusations and things in the press” about her ties to Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Last week, those ties apparently prompted dozens of former intelligence officials to send a letter to Sens. John Thune and Chuck Schumer, who will lead their parties in the new Senate, casting doubt on “her ability to deliver unbiased intelligence briefings to the President, Congress, and to the entire national security apparatus.” Speaking to The Dispatch, some Republican senators seemed to be addressing those concerns rather than explaining what they would hope to learn from Gabbard on her views on Syria.
“Tulsi is tremendously intelligent and a longtime friend, and she’s a highly vetted lieutenant colonel in the United States Army Reserve, so I think she’s one we can certainly trust,” said Sen. Ted Budd of North Carolina.
Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma said he had talked to Gabbard about Syria since she was in the House, where she represented Hawaii from 2013 to 2021. “All this stuff that the Democrats [are] accusing her of being a Russian agent and stuff—I just always laugh,” he said. “I was like, ‘You know she’s been promoted twice. She’s a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army [Reserve]. If there was an issue with her background and her decisions, I think that would already be exposed by now.’”
His colleague, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, spoke generally about the confirmation process for her and other nominees. “I look forward to examining her nomination,” he said. “The advice and consent process is a critical process laid out in the Constitution, and every nominee will face a vigorous confirmation hearing,” he said. “My presumption is that all the president’s nominees will be confirmed.”
Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who could be in for a difficult 2026 reelection campaign in either the primary, general, or both, echoed comments his office made last week, indicating he would vote for nominees who get a positive vote from their committees of jurisdiction.
“I don’t think I have ever voted in opposition to anyone who came out of that … committee with an affirmative vote, and, therefore, I’m going to put deference in the committee process,” Tillis told The Dispatch.
Please note that we at The Dispatch hold ourselves, our work, and our commenters to a higher standard than other places on the internet. We welcome comments that foster genuine debate or discussion—including comments critical of us or our work—but responses that include ad hominem attacks on fellow Dispatch members or are intended to stoke fear and anger may be moderated.
With your membership, you only have the ability to comment on The Morning Dispatch articles. Consider upgrading to join the conversation everywhere.