President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), is facing a rocky path to Senate confirmation. Gabbard’s evolving position on a critical surveillance program, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), has raised concerns among lawmakers, some of whom view her past opposition to the program as a potential red flag.
Section 702 allows the intelligence community to monitor electronic communications of foreign individuals—sometimes including Americans they contact—who may pose national security threats. Previously a fierce critic of the program, Gabbard now says reforms have addressed her civil liberties concerns, prompting her newfound support for the tool.
As she meets with Senators ahead of her confirmation hearings, Gabbard has sought to reassure lawmakers that she supports Section 702 as a “crucial” resource for national security. “If confirmed as DNI, I will uphold Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights while maintaining vital national security tools like Section 702 to ensure the safety and freedom of the American people,” she said in a recent statement.
Gabbard attributed her earlier opposition to insufficient safeguards for civil liberties, particularly the FBI’s alleged misuse of the program. She noted that significant reforms to FISA since her tenure in Congress have resolved many of those issues.
However, skepticism lingers among some lawmakers who question her dramatic change in perspective.
During her time in Congress, Gabbard was a vocal opponent of FISA Section 702. In late 2020, as she prepared to leave office, she co-sponsored the Protect Our Civil Liberties Act with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY). The legislation sought to repeal both Section 702 and the Patriot Act, which Gabbard argued had been exploited to violate Americans’ privacy.
At the time, Gabbard described the intelligence community as lacking transparency and honesty, asserting that its actions had infringed on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. She called for Congress to “reexamine how best to strike this balance” between security and civil liberties.
This past advocacy contrasts sharply with her current stance, sparking scrutiny from lawmakers who see her past actions as potentially at odds with her prospective role as the top official overseeing U.S. intelligence operations.
The debate over Gabbard’s nomination has split the Senate Intelligence Committee. Some members are skeptical of her shift on FISA, including Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), a prominent voice on the committee. Lankford highlighted the irony of Gabbard now advocating for the same surveillance authority she consistently opposed during her eight years in Congress.
“If she comes out and says, ‘No, I want to oppose all 702 authority,’ that literally shuts down all of our national defense gathering,” Lankford said. “I don’t think that’s what she’s going to say, but she’s going to need to clarify her stance during her hearing.”
Despite these concerns, Gabbard appears to have won over influential supporters. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, stated that she had personally assured him of her commitment to Section 702 as recently amended. “Tulsi Gabbard has assured me in our conversations that she supports Section 702 and that she will follow the law and support its reauthorization as DNI,” Cotton said.
The confirmation process highlights a broader debate about balancing national security with individual privacy. Section 702 is a cornerstone of U.S. intelligence operations, credited with disrupting terror plots and foreign espionage. Yet, it has faced criticism for its potential to infringe on Americans’ civil liberties through warrantless surveillance.
Gabbard’s challenge lies in convincing skeptics that she can uphold both objectives: protecting civil liberties and ensuring national security. Her confirmation hearings are expected to delve deeply into her past criticisms of FISA, her reasons for reversing course, and how she plans to oversee intelligence activities in a way that respects constitutional rights.
While some senators remain wary of her record, Gabbard has shown a willingness to address their concerns directly. Her evolving stance reflects not only personal growth but also the political and practical realities of serving as the director of national intelligence.
Still, the controversy underscores the high stakes of her nomination. For Gabbard, the hearings will serve as a pivotal moment to prove that her past actions align with her current commitments—and that she can lead the intelligence community with integrity and accountability.
Whether her assurances will be enough to secure the Senate’s approval remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Gabbard’s confirmation process will be closely watched as a litmus test for balancing privacy and security in America’s intelligence operations.