The nomination of former U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard for the role of director of national intelligence by President Donald Trump has reignited scrutiny over her controversial 2017 trip to Syria. This scrutiny arises mainly due to her meetings with Bashar al-Assad, the country's then-president.
According to Alternet, The revelation of previously undisclosed details regarding Gabbard's trip has triggered new concerns regarding her suitability for the intelligence position.
Gabbard, a former Democratic lawmaker, embarked on what she initially characterized as a fact-finding mission to Syria. The trip included stops in Lebanon where she met with religious leaders, refugees, and civilians, aiming to assess the humanitarian situation firsthand.
However, the nature of the trip took a surprising turn upon her arrival in Syria. According to The Washington Post, which obtained trip records and interviewed Gabbard’s former staffers, she met with Assad twice during her visit. Each meeting lasted approximately three hours.
The ex-staffers expressed concerns about being misled on the actual agenda of the meetings. Notably, the planning stages of the trip indicated meetings with the Syrian foreign minister and other dignitaries, excluding Assad.
Details uncovered by the media suggest that the meetings with Assad were not part of the original plan disclosed to Gabbard’s team. A former staffer recounted the surprise, stating, "What do you talk about for three hours in a supposed unplanned meeting?" This comment underscores the lack of transparency some members of her campaign team perceived.
Another staffer pointedly expressed doubt about the randomness of these encounters. "Looking back, I will go to the grave believing that she lied to us," the staffer mentioned, reflecting a sense of betrayal over the unforeseen engagements with Assad—who is widely criticized for his human rights record.
Gabbard’s justification for these interactions—that they were spontaneous and unintended—has not sufficiently dispelled the skepticism among her former staff. The meetings required a late scramble to amend ethics filings and reconcile public statements, which complicated the narrative she had presented earlier.
The former congresswoman later reimbursed around $9,000 for the travel expenses, arguing that this move negated the requirement to disclose it as government-paid travel. However, this action did little to quell the ongoing controversy surrounding the ethics of her meeting with Assad, whom Russian authorities later granted asylum after deposing him in December 2024.
Assad's brutal crackdown on dissenters during the Arab Spring and subsequent oppressive tactics made Gabbard’s meetings with him a focal point of criticism. The meetings took on further significance as people globally viewed the Assad regime, especially in the context of serious allegations of human rights abuses.
As Trump’s administration proposes Gabbard for an intelligence role, these controversies could prove particularly problematic. Critics have already voiced concerns, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of Gabbard’s past engagements and public statements about foreign policy.
As the Senate prepares to consider Gabbard's nomination, concerns about her historical interactions and decisions continue to surface, affecting perceptions of her suitability for the role. In particular, an unnamed campaign consultant emphasized the need for clarity and a solid response regarding the itinerary and the true nature of her trip during interviews.
The consultant stated, "We need a solid answer to that question," highlighting the critical need for transparency in the ongoing discourse around Gabbard’s nomination and her past actions. Moreover, this statement underscores the broader implications of her previous decisions and their alignment with the expectations for the director of national intelligence.
In summary, as Gabbard's nomination process unfolds, discussions around her 2017 trip indicate that the political and ethical implications of her past actions will significantly influence her chances. Ultimately, the insights from her team portray a scenario of miscommunication and mistrust that now stand at the forefront of her nomination's critical examination.
