Tulsi Gabbard Clears Questions About 2017 Assad Meeting During DNI Confirmation Hearing
Nominee for director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard defends her diplomatic approach, addressing key concerns about her Syria trip and emphasizing its value for U.S. intelligence.
Tulsi Gabbard, President Donald Trump’s nominee for director of national intelligence, addressed questions on Thursday regarding her 2017 meeting with then-Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
During her testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Gabbard clarified key points about the trip, defending its purpose and her approach to gathering firsthand insights in conflict zones.
Responding to Senator Martin Heinrich’s inquiry, Gabbard confirmed that she directly pressed Assad on critical issues, including the use of chemical weapons, civilian casualties, and human rights abuses under his regime.
“Yes, senator.
I asked him tough questions about his own regime's actions, including the use of chemical weapons and the brutal tactics used against his own people,” she said.
Gabbard, who traveled to Syria with former congressman Dennis Kucinich, also expressed surprise that neither the intelligence community nor the State Department followed up on her visit to obtain details.
“I was surprised that no one from the intelligence community or the State Department reached out or showed any interest in my takeaways from the trip,” she said.
Upon her return, she briefed prominent leaders, including then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, to share her observations.
When asked whether she considered the trip to be a demonstration of good judgment, Gabbard defended the decision, stating that direct engagement is crucial for effective leadership.
“Yes, senator.
I believe that leaders, whether in Congress or the presidency, can benefit greatly by engaging on the ground and meeting directly with people, adversaries or allies alike,” she added.
Gabbard also clarified that while she did not expect to secure concessions from Assad during the visit, she saw the discussion as an essential opportunity to raise critical issues face-to-face.
“I didn’t expect immediate results, but I felt it was important to address these matters directly,” she explained.
Her visit, which has been a focal point of criticism among some lawmakers, was compared during the hearing to a similar trip taken by former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who met Assad in 2007 despite criticism at the time.
Gabbard’s testimony reinforced her broader view that diplomatic engagement, even with adversaries, is a valuable tool for gathering strategic insights.
The confirmation hearing is part of her nomination process to oversee the nation’s intelligence agencies, which play critical roles in national security and counterterrorism.
As Gabbard continues to face scrutiny, her testimony highlighted her commitment to comprehensive intelligence gathering and her defense of proactive, on-the-ground diplomacy.
During her testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Gabbard clarified key points about the trip, defending its purpose and her approach to gathering firsthand insights in conflict zones.
Responding to Senator Martin Heinrich’s inquiry, Gabbard confirmed that she directly pressed Assad on critical issues, including the use of chemical weapons, civilian casualties, and human rights abuses under his regime.
“Yes, senator.
I asked him tough questions about his own regime's actions, including the use of chemical weapons and the brutal tactics used against his own people,” she said.
Gabbard, who traveled to Syria with former congressman Dennis Kucinich, also expressed surprise that neither the intelligence community nor the State Department followed up on her visit to obtain details.
“I was surprised that no one from the intelligence community or the State Department reached out or showed any interest in my takeaways from the trip,” she said.
Upon her return, she briefed prominent leaders, including then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, to share her observations.
When asked whether she considered the trip to be a demonstration of good judgment, Gabbard defended the decision, stating that direct engagement is crucial for effective leadership.
“Yes, senator.
I believe that leaders, whether in Congress or the presidency, can benefit greatly by engaging on the ground and meeting directly with people, adversaries or allies alike,” she added.
Gabbard also clarified that while she did not expect to secure concessions from Assad during the visit, she saw the discussion as an essential opportunity to raise critical issues face-to-face.
“I didn’t expect immediate results, but I felt it was important to address these matters directly,” she explained.
Her visit, which has been a focal point of criticism among some lawmakers, was compared during the hearing to a similar trip taken by former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who met Assad in 2007 despite criticism at the time.
Gabbard’s testimony reinforced her broader view that diplomatic engagement, even with adversaries, is a valuable tool for gathering strategic insights.
The confirmation hearing is part of her nomination process to oversee the nation’s intelligence agencies, which play critical roles in national security and counterterrorism.
As Gabbard continues to face scrutiny, her testimony highlighted her commitment to comprehensive intelligence gathering and her defense of proactive, on-the-ground diplomacy.
