Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday did nothing to convince the editorial board of the conservative Wall Street Journal that she is a suitable nominee to be Donald Trump's Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
In fact, as they wrote in a scathing editorial, her answers on key questions not only contradicted two other Trump Cabinet nominees, but led them to believe she would be a danger to the U.S.
Gabbard, a former Democrat, struggled to assuage concerns by senators on both sides of the aisle, putting her nomination at risk.
ALSO READ: Top GOPer's ‘most immediate’ priority for new committee includes probing a MAGA conspiracy
According to the WSJ editorial board, her objections over Section 702, part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, put her at odds with intelligence officials –– as well as Trump appointees Kash Patel (FBI) and John Ratcliffe (CIA) –– because it would handcuff intelligence gathering overseas.
The editors wrote, "Given a chance to walk back her opposition to Section 702 surveillance policy, she reinforced why she would be dangerous as White House director of national intelligence," before adding, "Surveillance is one of the few tools the U.S. has to detect and prevent such attacks before they happen, including overseas communications with people in the U.S. who may intend harm. Given Ms. Gabbard’s views on 702, it’s no surprise that she sounds badly uninformed on the subject."
Asking, "is her anti-surveillance ideology so great that she is willing to take a risk with the lives of Americans to cripple a crucial surveillance tool?" the editors made the case it is too much of a risk to hand her such a job after being given a promise by the president.
"Mr. Trump made a campaign deal with Ms. Gabbard to give her a cabinet position in return for her endorsement. He did his part by nominating her. But the Senate can do Mr. Trump, and the country, a favor by rejecting a director of national intelligence who doesn’t understand the vital tools of the job," they concluded.
You can read more here.