From Sen. Mark Warner’s office:
AHEAD OF KEY VOTE, WARNER SPEAKS ON THE SENATE FLOOR TO OPPOSE TULSI GABBARD FOR DNI
WASHINGTON – Vice Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) today spoke on the Senate floor about his opposition to the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence ahead of a key procedural vote.
“We need leaders in the Intelligence Community and throughout government who are prepared to stand up to short-sighted attempts to attack our workforce at the expense of our national security. Unfortunately, I do not believe Ms. Gabbard is such a leader. Nor is she well-suited, by dint of experience or judgment, to serve as Director of National Intelligence,” said Sen. Warner.
For weeks, Sen. Warner has been raising the alarm about Gabbard’s lack of qualifications for the position. You can view her full hearing in front of the Intelligence Committee here.
Sen. Warner’s full remarks as prepared are below:
“I rise in opposition to the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be the Director of National Intelligence… because nothing less than our national security is currently on the line.
Now, I’m going to start by saying that I have nothing but respect for Ms. Gabbard’s many years of service to our nation… both in uniform, and as the former representative for Hawaii.
I do not question Ms. Gabbard’s patriotism… I oppose her nomination because I question her judgment.
Many may not understand the important role of the Director of National Intelligence…
If confirmed, Ms. Gabbard will lead the 18 agencies of the Intelligence Community. She will also serve as the Principal Advisor to the President… the National Security Council… and the Homeland Security Council for all intelligence matters related to national security. And she will be responsible for over $100 billion between the National Intelligence Program and the Military Intelligence Program.
The stakes here have become all the more critical in recent days.
Just in the past couple of weeks, President Trump has issued several directives that could irreparably harm our intelligence efforts and our nation’s ability to defend itself against the many threats we face.
At the FBI, some of our most experienced agents… who have protected us for decades from terrorists, drug traffickers, spies, and violent criminals… have been unceremoniously fired.
Thousands more have reason to fear they may be next, based on the vindictive list apparently being assembled of every FBI official who was involved in investigations into the Capitol riot on January 6.
Across the IC…including the CIA, DIA, NSA, NRO and NGA…intelligence officers and analysts with irreplaceable skills are indiscriminately being pressured to resign or retire…And reportedly, senior law enforcement and national security officials are being asked to take political litmus tests, such as whether the 2020 Presidential Election was “stolen,” and whether the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol was a “inside job.”
Across the government, whole agencies are being eliminated and funding impounded in flagrant defiance of the Constitution and the law… while unvetted, unqualified “DOGE bros” – one who formerly worked for a Russian hacker group and was fired for leaking sensitive company secrets to a competitor … and yet another who proudly declared himself a “racist” and said he would not mind if, quote, “Gaza and Israel were both wiped off the face of the Earth” – illegally burrow into classified and other sensitive information… jeopardizing our national security and violating Americans’ privacy.
To take just one recent example of what is at stake here: last week, the CIA apparently sent an email – using an unclassified system – to the White House listing the names of all recently hired employees… evidently in an attempt to comply with an executive order to reduce the size of the workforce… no matter how badly their skills might be needed.
I shouldn’t need to explain to any member of this body the counterintelligence risks associated with exposing these officers’ identities to our adversaries.
And I know that many of my Republican colleagues profess to take the use of unclassified servers very seriously indeed.
Beyond the counterintelligence risk of foolishly exposing these officers’ names using channels known to be targeted by foreign hackers… this careless effort to identify and potentially dismiss recently recruited and trained CIA officers also imperils longstanding, bipartisan efforts by the Senate Intelligence Committee to modernize and streamline the Agency’s hiring process… and help CIA recruit and retain the talented young officers it needs to confront the growing national security threat posed by the People’s Republic of China.
We need leaders in the Intelligence Community and throughout government, who are prepared to stand up to these short-sighted attempts to attack our workforce at the expense of our national security.
Unfortunately, I do not believe Ms. Gabbard is such a leader.
Nor is she well-suited, by dint of experience or judgment, to serve as Director of National Intelligence.
The DNI is a position of great importance and significance to our national security… created after one of the worst security failures in our nation’s history… 9/11.
For that reason, when Congress established the position… thanks in large part to the work of my good friend, Susan Collins… it mandated in law that any individual nominated for the position must have, and I quote, “extensive national security expertise.”
As I noted previously, the DNI was created in part to fill an intelligence sharing gap identified by the 9/11 Commission.
That mission – to share intelligence not only between all U.S. departments and agencies, but also with our allies – is predicated on trust… trust that we and our allies will protect each other’s secrets.
Yet repeatedly, Ms. Gabbard has excused our adversaries’ worst actions… and instead blamed the United States and our allies for them.
For example, she blamed NATO for Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
And despite the unanimous assessment of the Trump Administration DOD, State Department, and IC… she rejected the conclusion that Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people.
Now I don’t know if her intent in making those statements was to defend those dictators… or if she was simply unaware of the intelligence and how her statements would be perceived.
In either case, it calls into question her judgment… and if she has what it takes to build and develop the trust relationships necessary to give our allies confidence that they can share their most sensitive intelligence with us.
Make no mistake about it… if our allies stop sharing that intelligence, we will all be less safe. To offer just one example, last summer, intelligence sharing between the United States and Austria saved countless lives by disrupting a terrorist attack at a Taylor Swift concert… underscoring the importance of these relationships.
Ms. Gabbard has also been publicly outspoken in her praise and defense of Edward Snowden… someone who betrayed the trust and jeopardized the security of our Nation. The vast majority of the information he stole and leaked – before running off to hide in China and Russia, might I add – had nothing to do with Americans’ privacy… and compromised our nation’s most sensitive collection sources and methods.
In many ways we are still paying a price for Snowden’s betrayal… and it is beyond dispute that his actions put our men and women in uniform in places like Iraq and Afghanistan at risk.
Yet, Ms. Gabbard has celebrated Snowden as a, quote, “brave whistleblower” and advocated for his pardon.
This is someone the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee called a “traitor” who should, quote, “rot in jail for the rest of his life.”
When given the repeated opportunity in her confirmation hearing to agree with our esteemed Chairman in that assessment, she repeatedly declined.
Instead, she said, and I quote, “The DNI… has no role in determining whether or not Edward Snowden is a lawful whistleblower.”
Not only does she seem to believe that someone who divulged sensitive national secrets to Russia and China should be celebrated as “brave”… and not denounced as a “traitor”… she also does not seem to understand the DNI’s role in whistleblower determinations.
In fact, the DNI has a significant role in transmitting lawful whistleblower complaints to the intelligence committees. It would be irresponsible to confirm someone who cannot distinguish between complaints that are made lawfully, and those that are not.
Further, it is the statutory responsibility of the DNI to “protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.”
What message would it send to the intelligence workforce to have a DNI who would celebrate staff and contractors deciding to leak our Nation’s most sensitive secrets as they see fit?
Now let me move to another issue of pressing relevance to this nomination: that is section 702 of FISA.
It is hard to overstate the importance of this law. It is responsible for sixty percent of the intelligence in the President’s Daily Brief… and it has been instrumental in disrupting everything from terrorist attacks … to fentanyl trafficking… to foreign cyberattacks.
Many in Congress have, at various points, supported reforms to 702 to better balance security and civil liberties.
However, Ms. Gabbard has consistently gone further.
Not only did she vote against reauthorizing 702… she introduced legislation to repeal the whole thing and called its very existence a, quote, “blatant disregard for our Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.”
I understand that after she was nominated to be DNI she expressed a change of heart. That is welcome… but it is simply not credible. Just last May she criticized the very reforms she now credits with changing her mind as having made the law, quote, “many, many times worse.”
The DNI is responsible for making annual certifications under Section 702, without which all collection under the law will cease… And the law itself is up for reauthorization in just over a year, a process typically led by the DNI. I have no confidence in Ms. Gabbard’s commitment to either task.
Nor is it the only issue where she has demonstrated poor judgment that should be disqualifying for the role.
During an ill-advised trip to Syria and Lebanon in 2017, Ms. Gabbard exercised terrible judgment in electing to meet with Bashar al-Assad amid a conflict in which Assad was using sarin gas and other chemical weapons against his own people.
On that same trip, she also met with Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun.
Many Americans may not be familiar with Mr. Hassoun… but in 2011 he threatened to conduct suicide bomb attacks in the United States.
At her confirmation hearing Ms. Gabbard claimed not to know about Hassoun’s past.
But reporting following the hearing makes clear that her staff made her aware of that history at the time of her trip, in 2017… to say nothing of the fact that a simple Google search would have easily revealed his past.
What does it say about her judgment and experience that she would willingly meet with someone who very publicly issued terrorist threats against the United States of America?
Nor is it an isolated lapse…
Just last summer she accepted a trip to Italy that was paid for by the foundation of Pierre Louvrier, a man with deep connections to sanctioned Russian oligarchs.
And at her confirmation hearing she seemed unable to recognize why the national security interests of the United States might be better protected if TikTok… a social media app that reaches into the homes of millions of Americans… was under American ownership, rather than being subject to the control of the People’s Republic of China.
The world today is more complex and more dangerous than ever before… and we need serious people with the experience, expertise, and judgment to navigate that complexity.
Ms. Gabbard is not such a nominee. A vote in favor of her confirmation is an endorsement of President Trump’s lawless efforts to hollow out our national security workforce, and her confirmation will further strain the alliances that have kept our country safe for decades.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose Ms. Gabbard’s nomination.
Sign up for the Blue Virginia weekly newsletter
