Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

}}

DNI undue weight

The DNI nomination section currently has 11 paragraphs, and we haven't gotten to the confirmation hearings yet. Humanengr, this is too much detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree. I think I see some ways to compact it. Minor q while I look into that: Where do we put the last sentence (if we keep it)? Humanengr (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The "If confirmed, she'd be the first Pacific Islander..." sentence? I think it might go fine after the "peace through strength" clause on the nomination in the first paragraph. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

As you see, I'm doing a first pass; will continue in a bit. There are already ~ 24 Samoan, Pacific Islander, Hindu mentions in the body, including some in the lead. I'd leave it at the bottom or remove it for now as it defocuses. Humanengr (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That got us down from 1204 to 836 words. hth, Humanengr (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It's improved, but I think we have more to go. I'll make suggestions after I look more closely at it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

While I agree that the section is a bit long, but we also need to follow WP:BLPBALANCE when deleting content from the section, and we should have her defence and support, if we have the allegations and charges.

We have very detailed list and quotes of attacks from Democrats, which I think can be summarized as they all were basically calling Gabbard a Russian asset and security concern.

On November 15, 2024, Debbie Wasserman Schultz labeled Tulsi Gabbard a likely "Russian asset" on MSNBC. Jason Crow, a House Democrat member of the House intelligence committee expressed concerns over Gabbard's loyalties, fearing a chilling effect on allied intelligence. Tammy Duckworth suggested Gabbard is "compromised" due to her 2017 Syria visit and meetings with Assad, questioning her ability to pass a background check. Elizabeth Warren also accused Gabbard of being in Putin's pocket.

Also, we do not need detailed information such as who is Jason Crow and what are his feelings on Tulsi. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

We can make that paragraph massively more concise as they're all saying the same thing. What about:

Fearing a chilling effect on allied intelligence, Democratic Party politicians such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jason Crow, Tammy Duckworth and Elizabeth Warren criticised her for alleged alignment with Russia, using terms such as likely "Russian asset" and "compromised". On December 4, 2024, over 100 former national security and other officials wrote a letter to Senate leaders expressing concern at Gabbard's nomination A spokesperson for Gabbard responded that "these unfounded attacks" are from the same people who use classified information as a “partisan weapon to smear" their political enemy.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Humanengr (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

"Fearing a chilling effect on allied intelligence" can be challenged as WP:OR Original research, and hence, I have replaced it with more neutral language. Also, I have added the missing citations in the 2nd paragraph. I think, given the wide media coverage and the notability of the DNI position, the length of the section is reasonable. Also, we have restored reasonable balance in the section and the Tag about undue weight and balance may now be removed. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Notes

I retagged the DNI section. "Support"" has 8 paragraphs, "Opposition" has 5 paragraphs, "Hearing" is at 9 paragraphs, and we haven't gotten to the full body votes on cloture and the nomination yet. The DNI nomination section appears to be longer than the US House section, and she served there for 8 years. The WP:RECENTISM in editing of this article is out of control. Please think about what we would actually want to read about ten years from now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Snowden as 'traitor'; Gabbard re 702

@Starlighsky: I reverted b/c ‘sidestepped' editorializes and does not accurately reflect Gabbard's responses, e.g.: "Mr. Vice Chairman, Edward Snowden broke the law. I don't agree with all the intelligence he released nor the way in which he did it. There would have been opportunities for him to come to you in this committee or seek out the I.G. to release that information. The fact is he also, even as he broke the law, released information that exposed egregious illegal and unconstitutional programs happening within our government that led to serious reforms that Congress undertook.”

'Traitor' was presumably not used in a legal sense, but in a political context; not sure how that might be indicated so as to avoid misinterpretation.

Also, Bennet misrepresented Gabbard's position regarding 702, e.g.: "You [Senator Budd] and I both know and agree the national security capability that is provided by section 702 that enables this foreign surveillance on non-U.S. persons overseas is critical. Period. My commitment is to make sure that our national security tools are maintained to fulfill that requirement while also protecting Americans' Fourth Amendment rights and protection against unlawful search and seizure. There are a number of those reforms that you referenced, such as the prohibition of incidental collection, which we brought up when we served in the House; making sure 100% of U.S. Persons by the FBI on this incidental collection are reviewed by the Attorney General herself.” (I see you referred to the AG review in your footnote.)

She continued: "There are a number of other reforms I believe strengthen significantly those safeguards, a number of them that I had worked to try to bring in place when I was in the House of Representatives. I look forward if confirmed as Director of National Intelligence to overseeing and assessing the implementation of these reforms and reporting back to you as you begin to consider next year's reauthorization and meeting that mark of ensuring our security and upholding Americans Fourth Amendment protections."

Gabbard acknowledged reforms had been implemented and indicated intent to oversee enforcement. Humanengr (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I just want to start with "sidestepped" was the exact wording from neutral and reliable published sources which I referenced. One senator mentioned that she was asked the same question 5 times. This needs to be there to avoid political bias. Starlighsky (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Traitor was the word used by the Senate Intelligence Committee, over and over again, as a main focus. Starlighsky (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

With 702, I was writing what a senator said. It does not mean that he is correct. It is important for my note on 702 to remain in the article, becaue it is not something that the general public may understand. Starlighsky (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The hearing spent a lot of time asking about Snowden betrayed the U.S.. Readers may have different opinons, but that is what the hearing had focused on a great deal. Starlighsky (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

It needs the traitor questions. As one senator mentioned, Gabbard was asked five times and would not give a yes or no answer. This is a key issue because it was such a large issue in the hearing. Starlighsky (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The issue is the weight of "egregious illegal and unconstitutional programs" versus the 1.5 million files vastly putting employees of the intelligence community and members of the Armed Forces at risk, as was brought by the senators in the hearing. Starlighsky (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

While "sidestepped" might be quoted from sources, its use in Wikipedia should aim for neutrality. WaPo here phrased it more neutrally as "repeatedly declined to call him a traitor”.

Re ’traitor’: As per Snowden’s WP page, he was never charged with treason under Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. The charges were 18 U.S.C. 641 Theft of Government Property; 18 U.S.C. 793(d) Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information; 18 U.S.C. 798(a)(3) Willful Communication of Classified Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person.

Further re ’traitor’: Sen. Schmitt, in his interview today on NBC, spoke to the political nature of the term "traitor" in this context. Schmitt defended Gabbard's refusal to directly label Snowden a traitor, arguing that such questions are part of a "gotcha" narrative used to disqualify individuals based on their refusal to use specific terminology.

Will respond further, Humanengr (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The article needs "repeatedly declined to call him a traitor”, I would think.

The concern is that she had introduced legislation requesting for Snowden to be pardoned.

The other concern is that several senators stated that Snowden's 1.5 million files were more of files that put government employees lives at risk than they were of files about illegal surveillance and so on. Starlighsky (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Good to agree on 'repeatedly'. Were you wanting to add further re 'pardon'? Humanengr (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I added the legislation that was introduced requesting the pardon. I can add more on that as more news develops on this. Starlighsky (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Per her op-ed last night:

There were many questions during my confirmation hearing last week about Edward Snowden, who broke the law in 2013 by releasing a massive amount of highly sensitive classified information to the media, which included information that harmed our national security and revealed illegal and unconstitutional government programs that conducted mass surveillance of millions of Americans' data.

Given the interest by committee members about whether Edward Snowden should be called a "traitor," here's what I shared with the Senate Intelligence Committee in the closed session about why I do not casually throw around that term: Treason is a capital offense, punishable by death, yet politicians like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former US Senator Mitt Romney have slandered me, Donald Trump Jr. and others with baseless accusations of treason. It is essential to focus on the facts, not the label. Snowden should have raised his concerns about illegal surveillance through authorized channels, such as the Inspector General or the Intelligence Committee, instead of leaking to the media.

Humanengr (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

This is essentially an issue of logic:

• A traitor is "someone who violates an allegiance and betrays their country." from Wiktionary.
• A person who commits treason is a traitor.
• However, not all people who are traitors have committed treason.

Starlighsky (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

That distinction is lost on many; hence its utility in political discourse (e.g., attempting to position Gabbard's views) and Gabbard's reluctance to use the term casually. Note also that in WP, 'traitor' redirects to 'treason' and the last para of the lead there says: "At times, the term traitor has been used as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. …. Likewise the term traitor is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur …". The current text accurately reflects both the nature of the questioning during the hearing and Gabbard's nuanced response. Humanengr (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess it is better to refer to the top of the thread and 702 from here.

For readers, here is example of 702 from the events of Gabbard visiting Syria:

While Tulsi Gabbard was in Syria, the U.S. was allowed by 702 to monitor Hezbollah conversations. When Hezbollah intercepted communication mentioned U.S. citizen Tulsi Gabbard had met important people from Hezbollah, that was incidental to the monitoring of Hezbollah telecommunication, and was also allowed by 702 because it was incidental. Tulsi Gabbard may not have known of all the Hezbollah officials in Syria who were saying using their roles in Syria as their official title.

Source: Hezbollah Officials Had Suspicious Conversation About Tulsi Gabbard, The New Republic Starlighsky (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

We can complement Bennet's remark with Gabbard's view, which she clarified extensively during the hearing and in response to post-hearing qq's:

During the hearing, Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colorado) suggested to the chairman that the committee could do better than "someone who doesn't believe in 702". Later, when given an opportunity, Gabbard clarified her position by stating: "702 provides a unique security tool and capability that is essential for our national security... [it] must exist next to having safeguards in place to ensure Americans civil liberties are protected." Gabbard emphasized her support for 702 with necessary reforms, particularly advocating for warrants in U.S. person queries under certain conditions. She also confirmed her commitment to working with the committee on reauthorization and further reforms post-hearing, stating, "I commit to working with this committee throughout its consideration of reauthorizing and reforming Section 702."

Does that work for you? Humanengr (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Where I am uncertain is that Bennet was basically saying that she didn't believe in 702 and Snowden's actions as a betrayal. What is concerning is that if she really was a Russian asset, that is exactly how she would respond to the two issues.Starlighsky (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Starlighsky

The existing article text addresses the Snowden issue; the proposed addresses 702. Re your What is concerning is that if she really was a Russian asset, that is exactly how she would respond to the two issues, see WP:BLPTALK and WP:BLPGOSSIP (which also applies to Talk pages). I'll proceed with the edit above unless you have further specific changes to offer. Humanengr (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I am just addressing my uncertainty as to what is the right thing to write. Bennet said two things, with the emphasis on the 2nd item, which is the betrayal by Snowden to the U.S.. Starlighsky (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I just want to give my line of reasoning on why both items mentioned by Bennet were important:

She had introduced legislation, House Legislation 1162, for all charges against Snowden to be dropped. Starlighsky (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Snowden was not charged under Article III, Section 3, which addresses ’treason'. [1162] explicitly referred to “charges for violating sections 793(d) and 798(a)(3) of the Espionage Act and theft of government property under section 641 of title 18, United States Code”, not Article III, Section 3. H.Res. 1162 did not absolve from ‘treason’. (And Bennet did not refer to 1162.) Humanengr (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

We are all doing our best to help the article. I can put what I am trying to say in the framework of a Wikipedia article:

Background

Gabbard introduced House Legislation 1162 which was proposed legislation for Snowden to be cleared of all charges.

Senate hearing

Gabbard was asked about Snowden in the hearing. Starlighsky (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Made a related edit for clarity. Humanengr (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the mentioning of WP:BLPTALK and WP:BLPGOSSIP implies a significant misunderstanding. It is a line of reasoning of If A can exist, then behavior B implies A does exist. The person in the biography texted on the day of Russia's invasion into Ukraine that this was the fault of NATO, President Biden, and Ukraine. She later added Vladimir Putin, but the behavior was concerning to some on the nomination committee. Starlighsky (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Included the text as we had worked it above (with some minor edits). If anything's missing, pls specify. Humanengr (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I reviewed everything on edit history.

I do have a concern that she made several commitments and Bennet had two key concerns. I can try to add those commitments later on. She also did not make some commitments. Starlighsky (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

How is this?

Senator Michael Bennet clearly expressed concerns about the following views of the nominee:

• 702 (i.e., § 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)
• Edward Snowden.

My line of reasoning is this: Bennet expressed two concerns at the same time. His tone of voice gained national attention. Gabbard made commitments to the committee based on their concerns. However, Bennet's concern about Gabbard's negative statements on social media on the day a nation was invaded was not part of the commitments. I can add this with references later on. Starlighsky (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Per the transcript, Bennet spent minutes 1 & 2 on Snowden; 3 & 4 on Russia-Ukraine; 5 is his summary where he mentions 702 for the 1st time. Gabbard did not have opportunity then to respond, but did later as noted. Others had asked re Snowden prior to Bennet. We already have two ¶s on Snowden (including Senators repeatedly asked Gabbard to label Snowden a traitor), so I'm not sure how much is gained by adding something re Snowden to the opening sentence in Bennet's ¶. It's possible, so the sentence would read Senator Michael Bennet, in addition to expressing concerns regarding Gabbard's views re Snowden, suggested to the chairman that the committee could do better than "someone who doesn't believe in 702". But, again, I don't see that it adds much value. Humanengr (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

That is perfect, I would think.

Bennet had two main concerns with the nominee when he turned and spoke to the chairman of the committee. For readers in general, Bennet essentially raised his voice when he mentioned her social media posts on the day Russia invaded Ukraine. Starlighsky (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Notes

Undue re DNI §

Muboshgu What would you say is the first priority to address? Thx for guidance. Humanengr (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

So much cutting. I don't even know where to start. There's already more on Gabbard as DNI, and she's not even confirmed yet, then there is at Avril Haines#Director of National Intelligence (2021–2025) after a four-year tenure. Granted, Gabbard probably generates more press than Haines, but the discrepancy is stark. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking for another controversial nominee as an example, how about Jeff Sessions#Nomination and confirmation? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Found another comparator: Kash Patel#Nomination as Director of the FBI. Pared some. Humanengr (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

DNI and Foreign Malign Influence Center of ODNI

The Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) manages the Foreign Malign Influence Center (FMIC), which is an organization for integrating intelligence in foreign malign influence (FMI). FMI is defined as foreign actors using subversive and/or coercive disinformation to influence how people in public discussion the United States think, act, and make decision by means of the targeting of individuals or group in the United States to cause harm. Gabbard has made comments about Russia that have drawn some criticism. If Gabbard is director of National Intelligence (DNI), the FMIC is one of five centers at ODNI that would be under her command. I had this idea in the article, but it was deleted. Starlighsky (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

That combined info about FMIC with Gabbard's comments on Russia and her potential role as DNI to suggest implications or connections that have not been explicitly made by any of the cited sources; hence violates WP:SYNTH (which was in the revert edit summary and in my Talk page response to your q there). Humanengr (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how present the following is appreciated:

• She would manage FMIC as DNI.
• There are concerns about what she had said about Ukraine, NATO, and the President of the United States.

Starlighsky (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

First paragraph consensus

Please discuss here before making changes to the first paragraph per WP:LEAD and WP:CONSENSUS. The below content has a reasonable consensus. Adding new content needs to be discussed.

Tulsi Gabbard (/ˈtʌlsi ˈɡæbərd/; born April 12, 1981) is an American politician and military officer serving as the eighth director of national intelligence (DNI) since 2025. She is also a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve since 2021. A former Congresswoman, she served as the U.S. representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district from 2013 to 2021.

She also served as the youngest state legislator in Hawaii from 2002 to 2004.

She left the Democratic Party in 2022 to become an independent. In 2024, she joined the Republican Party. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

DNI combat military veteran

She is the first female military combat veteran to serve as the DNI 137.246.135.85 (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Done (in Director of National Intelligence §) Humanengr (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)