Van Duyn has sent letters to Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, detailing Gabbard’s deep ties to the organization and its reclusive founder, Chris Butler, who still resides in a multimillion-dollar beachfront home in Kailua.
The letters come as Gabbard is trying to salvage her nomination on Capitol Hill this week after national security experts, former colleagues and others have openly questioned her fitness for the job, with many of the criticisms centered on her lack of intelligence experience, her parroting of Russian propaganda and sympathies for international strongmen, such as Syria’s recently deposed President Bashar al-Assad whom she visited in 2017.
The van Duyn letters outline what she says are Butler’s long-standing political ambitions and the ways he groomed and supported his disciples in their pursuit of public office while promoting his own ideologies, which include a long history of espousing anti-gay rhetoric.
Van Duyn says she worries that Gabbard is still under Butler’s influence, which could compromise national security, noting in her letter that she suspects that any sensitive intelligence Gabbard is privy to will be “communicated to her guru.”
Erika Tsuji, a spokesperson for Gabbard, did not respond to Civil Beat requests for an interview with Gabbard about her relationship with Butler and the Science of Identity Foundation.
Trump’s transition team similarly did not respond to requests for comment.
Van Duyn pointed to Gabbard’s shifting political allegiances and constant upward trajectory as evidence that she’s following Butler’s playbook, from running as a progressive anti-war Democrat in 2020 to going all-in on Trump’s second-term agenda that includes promises of pardons for Jan. 6 rioters, rolling back environmental regulations and mass deportation.
“Everybody is thinking her allegiance is to Trump, but in reality her allegiance was already given away to her guru,” van Duyn said in an interview with Civil Beat. “You can’t just go in and out of that. That’s a lifetime commitment.”
Throughout her public life, Gabbard has been dogged by her ties to the Science of Identify Foundation and Butler, in particular, who has openly described Gabbard as a star pupil.
While Gabbard has tried to downplay this relationship — often criticizing questions about it as an attempt to foment religious bigotry — experts say it shouldn’t be dismissed so easily, especially because if confirmed she’ll be responsible for leading 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and NSA, and overseeing a budget of nearly $75 billion.
Scholars specializing in cultic studies and new religious movements said the Science of Identity Foundation displays many of the characteristics that define a cult, which raises questions about whether Gabbard has the judgment and autonomy required to advise the president on matters of national security.
“It is problematic if people in the government making choices for millions of people are being exploited by these manipulative gurus,” Wind Goodfriend, a professor of experimental psychology at Buena Vista University in Iowa, said. While there’s no singular definition for what makes a cult, she said one hallmark is whether a group is “promoting prejudice and stigma that is destructive and harmful.”
Stephen Kent, a professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Alberta, said those who have defected from the Science of Identity Foundation and been willing to speak out have called Butler an authoritarian, narcissistic leader and described troubling experiences, including verbal abuse, sleep and food deprivation and children being forced to listen to lectures that are “deeply homophobic and sometimes sexually graphic.”
Followers bow to altars of Butler and treat objects that he’s touched or leftover scraps of food as holy relics. If they leave they often find themselves ostracized by the group, including friends and family.
Gabbard has been vague about her own experiences in the group and in 2017 told a reporter for The New Yorker magazine she’d never heard Butler say anything mean or hateful about anyone. “I can speak to my own personal experience and, frankly, my gratitude to him, for the gift of this wonderful spiritual practice that he has given to me, and to so many people,” she said.
Kent said it’s clear that Gabbard’s relationship with Butler and his Science of Identity Foundation is “deep and intense.” As a result it should be acceptable for her to be questioned about how her spiritual values might color her worldview, especially since there’s concern she might be operating from any “prejudicial notions” stemming from Butler’s teachings.
Another concern echoes van Duyn, the former disciple. What would happen, he said, if she went against Butler’s wishes?
“Anybody who studies guru-based groups knows that what’s ultimately important is pleasing the guru, not saying or doing anything that upsets or challenges the guru,” Kent said. “Would there be blowback? Would there be repercussions for her were she to take a national security position in contradistinction to Butler’s decisions?”
Jeannie Bishop, who is listed in nonprofit tax records as president of the Science of Identity Foundation, did not respond to a request for comment.
Gabbard’s private and public life has sometimes been twisted up with Butler’s world. She was born into the Science of Identity Foundation and her parents, Carol and Mike Gabbard, a state senator, have been prominent figures in the group.
Throughout her political career, Gabbard has maintained ties with Butler and his followers, whether hiring them to staff her congressional office or work on her 2020 presidential campaign. Her husband, Abraham Williams, has deep roots in the organization.
Science of Identity members have donated to her campaigns, sign-waved on her behalf and even staffed her most ambitious political endeavors, most prominently her run for president. In some cases, these followers were simply volunteering their time and efforts. In others, they were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Whether senators seize on Gabbard’s ties to Butler and the Science of Identity Foundation is another matter altogether.
She already faces an uphill battle based on her lack of intelligence experience, questionable liaisons with international leaders, such as Syriaʻs al-Assad, and embracement of Russian talking points. Earlier this month, nearly 100 former national security officials signed a letter telling senators they were “alarmed” at the prospect of Gabbard leading the nation’s intelligence community.
Senators could open themselves up to counterattacks if they target Gabbard over her religion, said Todd Belt, professor and director of George Washington University’s political management program. He pointed to Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her own ties to a secretive Christian group known as the People of Praise, which embraces strict and traditional gender roles for men and women.
As a nominee, Barrett faced numerous questions about her religion and how it might influence her work. But when the late U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein declared that “the dogma lives loudly within you” it became a rallying cry for her defense and quickly put Democrats in the crosshairs of those alleging religious persecution.
Being director of national intelligence, however, puts Gabbard in a unique position, Belt said, one in which questions about her religious affiliations might be warranted. Intelligence agencies vet their employees to make sure they don’t have any conflicts of interest and to make sure there isn’t anything in their past that puts them at risk of extortion or bribery at the expense of national security.
“People are free to choose their religion,” Belt said. “The question is, to what extent does an appointee believe in the separation of church and state, and whether or not there will be a conflict of commitment in terms of the commitment to the religion and the commitment to protect the nation.”
Larry Pfeiffer, head of the Michael V. Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy, and International Security at George Mason University and former chief of staff to Hayden when he was director of the CIA, said Gabbard’s extensive history with the Science of Identity Foundation and Butler means there’s “definitely room for questions.”
But Pfeiffer also sees potential danger for senators trying to pin a no-vote solely on those connections. Other more concrete examples, he said, show that she doesn’t exhibit the competence and trustworthiness that’s required for the position.
The director of national intelligence has a direct line to the president and is responsible for preparing the daily briefing about potential dangers facing the U.S. and its allies. Having someone who recites Russian talking points and is “easily influenced by conspiracy theories,” he said, might not be the best pick.
Still, there are legitimate avenues of inquiry about Gabbard’s past considering the close proximity of Butler and his acolytes, from working inside her congressional office to playing significant roles in her campaigns, including when she ran for president in 2020.
“Your expectation is that a Director of National Intelligence is going to be this impartial broker of intelligence information to national leadership,” Pfeiffer said. “And if there’s any question that that individual is under some undue influence by anybody, a religious figure, a corporate figure, a foreign figure, that raises questions about their ability to be impartial.”
