Former Congresswoman Lieutenant Colonel Tulsi Gabbard stood firm during her confirmation hearing on Thursday, refusing to label Edward Snowden a traitor despite pressure from senators on both sides of the aisle.
More: 10 Years Of Edward Snowden
Her stance on Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor who leaked classified information, has raised concerns among lawmakers and may complicate her confirmation as President Trump’s pick for Director of National Intelligence. Gabbard has previously defended Snowden and introduced legislation in his favor, positions that have made her a target of scrutiny.
Edward Snowden’s leaks in 2013 exposed a vast, unconstitutional surveillance apparatus run by the US government. The classified documents he revealed showed that the NSA was illegally spying on American citizens, collecting their phone records, emails, and internet activity without warrants or probable cause.
One of the most alarming programs Snowden uncovered was PRISM, which allowed the NSA to directly access data from major tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, harvesting private communications, including messages, emails, and video calls. Another program, Upstream, intercepted internet traffic in bulk as it flowed through fiber-optic cables. These programs operated in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Additionally, Snowden’s leaks revealed that the NSA was not only targeting suspected terrorists or foreign spies but was indiscriminately and secretly collecting data on millions of innocent Americans. The government had secretly forced telecom providers like Verizon to hand over records of all domestic calls, regardless of whether the individuals had any connection to criminal activity.
During the hearing, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who has expressed support for her nomination, emphasized the significance of the issue. “This is a big deal to everybody here because it’s a big deal to everybody you’ll also oversee,” he said before directly asking, “So, was Edward Snowden a traitor?”
Gabbard stated her commitment to preventing future leaks of a similar nature if confirmed. When Lankford repeated the question, she once again avoided a yes-or-no response, saying, “I am focused on the future and how we can prevent something like this from happening again.”
“Edward Snowden broke the law. I do not agree with or support with all of the information and intelligence that he released, nor the way in which he did it,” she said.
But she added he “released information that exposed egregious, illegal and unconstitutional programs.”
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) seized on the moment, pressing her even harder. In a heated exchange, he demanded she align with the majority opinion within the intelligence community. “Let me ask you again, do you believe — as the chairman of this committee believes, as the vast majority of members of our intelligence agencies believe — that Edward Snowden was a traitor to the United States of America?”
As Gabbard attempted to respond, Bennet cut her off, insisting, “This is when the rubber hits the road. This is not a moment for social media.” He went on to criticize what he called conspiracy theories and attacks on journalism, warning that this was the moment she needed to answer directly for those whose votes she sought.
Gabbard sharply criticized what she described as the previous administration’s misuse of intelligence for political purposes. She cited examples of how national security agencies were “weaponized and politicized” under President Joe Biden.
“I’m honored and grateful to President Trump for his trust and confidence in nominating me to serve our country as Director of National Intelligence, at a time when trust in the intelligence community is unfortunately at an all-time low,” Gabbard stated.
She underscored her commitment to bringing a “laser-like focus” to intelligence leadership, asserting that flawed or manipulated intelligence had historically contributed to major national security failures and the erosion of constitutional freedoms.
Additionally, she claimed that a FISA Title I warrant had been obtained illegally to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign aide Carter Page. Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows for electronic monitoring of foreign powers or their agents but has been accused of going beyond its scope and monitoring American citizens.
Gabbard also revisited the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop, asserting that Biden’s campaign advisor and previous Secretary of State Antony Blinken played a key role in prompting 51 intelligence officials to label the laptop as disinformation, allegedly to aid Biden’s election bid. Furthermore, she accused the FBI of targeting Catholics who attend traditional Latin Mass services under the Biden administration.
Highlighting a personal anecdote, she reminded the hearing that she was placed on a “secret domestic terror watchlist” within 24 hours of criticizing Vice President Kamala Harris.
“President Trump’s re-election is a clear mandate from the American people to break this cycle of failure, and the weaponization and politicization of the intelligence community and begin to restore trust in those who have been charged with the critical task of securing the nation,” Gabbard declared.
Gabbard also expressed her support for requiring warrants when conducting data searches under a contentious provision of US surveillance law.
Her position on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — which permits the collection and distribution of intelligence on foreign individuals deemed potential national security threats — clashes with the stance of many intelligence officials, both past and present, who argue that obtaining warrants impedes timely data retrieval.
“Warrants should generally be required before an agency undertakes a US Person query of FISA Section 702 data, except in exigent circumstances, such as imminent threats to life or national security,” Gabbard stated in written responses submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee ahead of her confirmation hearing. She further argued that this requirement “strengthens the IC by ensuring queries are targeted and justified.”
