Why Trump’s nomination of Gabbard for national intelligence director is controversial

If confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard would oversee 18 intelligence organizations including the CIA and NSA. Her nomination could set off a fight since Gabbard has no intelligence experience and is accused of defending dictators and parroting disinformation. Geoff Bennett discussed more with Michael Leiter, former director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center.
Geoff Bennett:
We’re going to take a closer look now at president-elect Donald Trump’s pick of former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard to be the next director of national intelligence.
If confirmed, Gabbard would oversee 18 intelligence organizations, including the CIA and NSA. But her nomination is expected to set off a confirmation fight, since she has no experience in the intelligence world and has been accused of defending dictators and parroting Russian disinformation, which she denies.
We’re joined now by Michael Leiter, former director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center who served in both the Bush and Obama administrations.
Thanks for being with us.
So, Donald Trump has made clear that he wants to clean House. He wants to overhaul the nation’s intelligence services. We also know that he is rewarding fealty as he staffs these top positions. So help us understand, in that context, what he sees in Tulsi Gabbard serving as director of national intelligence.
Michael Leiter, Former Director, National Counterterrorism Center:
Well, as you noted, President Trump, president-elect Trump, is clearly looking for people who are loyal to him.
I’m not sure that that’s fully different from any other president. I think there probably is an extra concern for intelligence positions, because, at their very core, the director of national intelligence and the director of CIA, although, of course, loyal to the president, are also there in their positions to, as everyone has said, speak truth to power, make sure that they are providing an objective analysis of the circumstances and allowing the president to make the policy choices that he’s empowered to do.
And I think some of the concern here is that whether Tulsi Gabbard has both the expertise and the experience, but also the inclination to speak truth to power.
Geoff Bennett:
The role of director of national intelligence was created after 9/11 because there was a concern that other intelligence agencies weren’t sharing information, that information had been siloed.
And so the federal government created this role. Help us understand what the DNI actually does.
Michael Leiter:
The director of national intelligence, the DNI, was really a result of decades of challenges and fights between the intelligence organizations, the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency.
And those were really epitomized in the failures of the weapons of mass destruction debacle in Iraq and 9/11. So the DNI was supposed to take this very large enterprise, coordinate budgets, coordinate efforts, and make sure that the president and the Cabinet had the best intelligence possible, regardless of where it came from, and making sure that differing views were coming to the president.
Now, it’s been a subject of criticism over its 20 years as being overly bureaucratic and not very efficient, but I think those core needs for the intelligence community to be well-coordinated and to make sure, again, that differing views are presented to the president, that’s still critical.
And I think the president is probably going to dig in to see if the DNI is fulfilling that role or if it’s necessary at all.
Geoff Bennett:
Tulsi Gabbard has been accused of echoing Russian propaganda. She has traded in conspiracy theories about Ukraine. She was widely criticized back in 2017 for meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who had been accused of war crimes.
Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton said that she should not sit for a Senate confirmation hearing until the FBI investigates her because he said that she presents a national security threat. Is that a concern that you share?
Michael Leiter:
Well, I certainly am very concerned with anyone in any position, national security or otherwise, who isn’t thinking very critically and questioning what enemies of the United States, like Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad in Syria, say to them.
Any official needs to realize that other countries and their leaders will try to manipulate our leadership for their benefit. So I think it’s going to be up to Ms. Gabbard to prove that she was not just echoing their propaganda, but she can actually reflect critically as an intelligence officer and will listen to all of the analysts who serve the United States government.
And she will ultimately get to make her own judgments. But she absolutely does need to be free of any influence from foreign governments. And that should be true of every U.S. official.
Geoff Bennett:
What might a second Trump term, in your view, mean for intelligence sharing? I mean, will our allies, NATO allies, the members of the so-called Five Eyes alliance, will they be as willing to share closely held secrets, sources and methods, not just because of Tulsi Gabbard potentially serving as DNI, but Donald Trump’s own cavalier approach to guarding classified documents?
Michael Leiter:
Your question is critical.
And the critical premise is that we do rely on our allies, whether it’s the United Kingdom or countries around the world, to share with us intelligence to protect our national security interests. And the U.S. has a terrible record of protecting secrets. And I think there’s legitimate concern that a Trump administration will have challenges with that.
And Ms. Gabbard does not have a history of working in this. So I think there’s going to be real concern both from allies, but also within the intelligence community. So she’s going to have to establish to the Senate that she can protect our nation’s most sensitive secrets and those secrets of our allies, because otherwise we will ultimately be weaker, have worse intelligence, and it will harm our national interests.
Geoff Bennett:
Michael Leiter, thanks, as always, for your insights. We appreciate it.
Michael Leiter:
My pleasure. Thanks.