Congress

In a first for a Trump nominee, Gabbard gets a not-so-friendly reception from Republicans

Published

2 years ago

January 30, 2025

Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump’s pick to be director of national intelligence, came into her nomination hearing Thursday ready to parry a volley of attacks from Democrats. But they weren’t the only ones asking the tough questions.

A number of Republicans seemed skeptical about Gabbard’s answers to questions about NSA contractor Edward Snowden and a controversial surveillance program. They also prodded her about her previous statements on Russia, Syria and Ukraine. It was a marked difference from the hearing of now-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth two weeks ago, in which Republicans heaped praise on the nominee and defended him from Democrats’ attacks.

While no Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee said outright they were wavering on the former Democratic lawmaker, it was far from a bear hug. Among those testing Gabbard’s views Thursday were James Lankford (R-Okla.), Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).

The lack of enthusiasm was not a promising sign for the former Democratic lawmaker. For weeks, Senate Republicans have said Gabbard needed a strong performance Thursday to clinch her nomination. The Senate Intelligence Committee is split 9-8 between the two parties, and Gabbard is not expected to pick up any votes from Democrats.

Young, one of the three members of the panel long viewed as a possible “no” on Gabbard heading into Thursday, offered up one of the most direct Republican jabs. It came after she sidestepped a stream of questions from members of both parties about whether she considered Snowden a traitor.

“I think it would befit you and be helpful to the way you are perceived by members of the intelligence community, if you would at least acknowledge that the greatest whistleblower in American history, so called, harmed national security by breaking the laws of the land around our intel authority,” he said.

Senators repeatedly reminded Gabbard that Snowden leaked reams of sensitive U.S. intelligence that endangered the lives of U.S. spies before he fled to Hong Kong and then Russia — to no avail.

Gabbard acknowledged Snowden broke the law but wouldn’t go further.

Since her surprise nomination two months ago, Gabbard has faced questions from Democrats but also some Republicans about her judgment, dovish foreign policy views and her lack of experience for the spy role.

Gabbard served for two decades in the military, is an Iraq war veteran, and has sat on the House Armed Services committee, but has never held a role at a U.S. spy agency.

Her nomination has been dogged by her past comments that echoed Kremlin talking points on NATO and the war in Ukraine; concern about a 2017 trip she took to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad; and doubts she has raised about U.S. assessments of Assad’s use of chemical weapons in that war.

From the start, Gabbard set a combative and defiant tone.

In her opening statement, she characterized many of the allegations against her as “lies and smears,” and cited a laundry list of recent wrongs and failures within the U.S. intelligence community. She looked up at the senators on the panel as she ticked off each one — the investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia, the Iraq war, denials about the existence of controversial NSA surveillance programs, and more — and rarely looked flustered when she came under tough questioning later.

Gabbard tried to spin her unconventional foreign policy views as evidence she boasts the brand of independent thinking that is needed to fix the country’s supposedly broken and biased intelligence system.

The Republican who offered the strongest endorsement of that pitch was Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) the chair of the intelligence committee.

“Look where conventional thinking has gotten us,” he said in his opening statement, citing a slew of failed U.S. wars and military interventions in the Middle East that he tied to Barack Obama. “Maybe Washington could use a little more unconventional thinking.”

Gabbard had her share of not-so-breezy moments with other Republicans, however.

Lankford — who has said he would vote for Gabbard — Cornyn, and Moran each pushed Gabbard during the question and answer section of the hearing.

Moran at one point told Gabbard he needed to make certain that Russia would not “get a pass in either your mind or your heart” if she were confirmed as DNI. Gabbard parried: “Senator, I’m offended by the question,” and added that if confirmed, “no country or group or individual will get a pass.”

Lankford appeared irked by Gabbard’s deflections on Snowden.

“This is a big deal to everybody here, because it’s a big deal to everybody you’ll also oversee,” Lankford said at one point. “So, was Edward Snowden a traitor?”

Collins and Young also pressed her on the issue. Young at one point burnished a print-out of a social media post Thursday from Snowden.

Gabbard will be “required to disown all prior support for whistleblowers as a condition of confirmation,” Snowden wrote. “I encourage her to do so.”

The Senate Intelligence Committee tends to have more bipartisanship than some other congressional panels. Democrats and Republicans generally share hawkish views on foreign policy and government surveillance, and committee votes are usually done behind closed doors.

For his part, Cornyn pushed Gabbard for more clarity on her views on the controversial Section 702 surveillance authority — which applies to foreigners’ communications but also sweeps up data on Americans. Gabbard, a privacy hawk while in Congress, in recent weeks reversed her opposition to Section 702 and said she supports it.

But Cornyn repeatedly attempted to pin Gabbard on whether the law should be reformed in certain ways to protect the privacy of Americans — something security hawks believe is unnecessary, and would cripple what they defend as their most powerful spy tool.

The clock ran out before he got a firm answer.

After the open hearing Thursday, Gabbard and the senators went behind closed doors for a follow-up session where they could talk freely about classified matters. What transpires there could prove decisive in the committee’s vote on Gabbard, which could come in the coming days.

Asked afterward how she was planning to vote, Collins said that she hadn’t made a decision yet. Moran sidestepped a question on if he would support her, and Young said nothing in response to questions as he left the classified portion.

If Gabbard does not secure a majority on the panel, there are other ways her confirmation can be brought to the Senate floor. But that is an unusual maneuver and would send a strong message that could sink her chances with those outside the committee.

Maggie Miller, Jordain Carney, Joe Gould and Eric Bazail-Eimil contributed to this report.

Congress

Democrats drop $5M into Kansas Senate race

Published

38 minutes ago

October 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Democrats’ top super PAC is pushing into Kansas.

The Chuck Schumer-aligned Senate Majority PAC is launching a $5 million statewide television ad blitz starting Saturday through Election Day — the latest sign that Democrats believe the Senate map is shifting onto red turf.

SMP had signaled in recent days it could get involved in the race, telling Blue Light News late last month it was “actively thinking” about whether to wade into the state where Democrats haven’t won a Senate seat in nearly a century but where Adam Hamilton narrowly leads GOP Sen. Roger Marshall in recent polls. Internal SMP polling that found an increasingly competitive race factored into the group’s decision to spend. It will also run digital ads.

“The gap is closing in Kansas,” SMP spokesperson Lauren French said in a statement. “We are committed to ensuring families understand Marshall’s real record of making health care and basic goods more expensive for working Kansans.”

Republicans are scrambling to shore up Marshall. Senate Leadership Fund, a top GOP super PAC aligned with Republican leadership, has booked over $10 million in ads through Election Day in the state, per ad tracking firm AdImpact.

SMP’s first ad attacks Marshall for joining Senate Republicans in voting to table a Democratic-led amendment last year to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. The Senate later approved legislation to release the files by unanimous consent. It’s the latest in a slate of ads from Democrats hitting their Republican rivals over the late, disgraced financier and convicted sex offender. Marshall’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Senate Democrats’ plunge into the state comes as the midterm battle map is undergoing a major realignment. Georgia and North Carolina — primed to be two of the cycle’s premiere battlegrounds — are tilting left to the point where national Republicans are retracting spending in both states and Democrats are starting to follow suit, freeing funds on both sides to shift elsewhere.

Republicans are racing to reinforce incumbents across what was once safer red turf. SLF has also pledged $5 million to bolster Sen. Darline Graham in South Carolina.

Democrats, meanwhile, are starting to spend more in red states. SMP has dropped over $2 million on digital ads in Texas. Schumer, the Senate minority leader, has included Kansas and Mississippi in his pitches to donors.

Congress

House Democratic campaign arm says it needs $17 million, and fast

Published

1 hour ago

October 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is begging for resources, and setting a hard deadline for donors to give $17 million in order to compete in a handful of districts that Republicans carried easily in 2024.

DCCC Executive Director Julie Merz said the committee needs the cash influx by Oct. 22 in order to “to take advantage of the opportunities we have” outside of the core battlefield, according to a memo shared with donors on Friday and obtained by POLITICO.

If they don’t pony up, Merz warns, the party “could be leaving winnable races on the table.”

Democrats have been clear that they have a fundraising disadvantage this cycle, but they have so far been reluctant to place a specific dollar amount on their needs, making the DCCC’s memo Friday a particularly surprising outlier.

“Here’s the tough reality though: the Republican ecosystem has amassed a massive war chest that is significantly greater than ours and is spending it,” Merz says in the memo after arguing that the members of the committee “remain confident that we will win back the majority in 25 days.”

Specifically, Merz dedicates significant portions of the memo to four districts where the committee is desperate for more money in order to compete — all of which President Donald Trump won by double-digit margins in 2024:

— Florida’s 27th District (Trump +14.6)

— Nevada’s 2nd District (Trump +13.9)

— South Carolina’s 1st District (Trump +13)

— New York’s 21st District (Trump +20.7)

The fundraising disadvantage has created headaches for both House and Senate Democrats over where, exactly, to deploy the resources they do have.

The committee tells donors that their internal polling shows all of those races within reach, but that Republicans’ big cash advantages — especially in the Trump-aligned super PAC MAGA Inc. — will make it harder to win those and other reach seats.

Merz also name drops a handful of other deep-red districts that are “worthy of additional investment in this environment,” including seats held by GOP Reps. French Hill (R-Ark.) and Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the chair of the Republican National Congressional Committee.

The NRCC was quick to mock the DCCC’s memo.

“No amount of money fixes candidates voters don’t want. These seats are staying red, and Republicans are on offense across the map,” NRCC spokesperson Mike Marinella said in a statement.

Congress

Capitol agenda: How Warren could link arms with Trump’s GOP

Published

7 hours ago

October 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Elizabeth Warren may get her clearest shot yet to take on corporate America next year — thanks to the once unthinkable help of Republicans.

The Massachusetts Democrat is poised to chair Senate Banking if the party takes back the chamber. And while the progressive has long been a boogeyman to corporate America, lobbyists worry she’ll have powerful backup thanks to the surge of populist Republicans eager to take big swings at Wall Street and Big Tech.

One longtime financial industry lobbyist, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said Warren “has a streak that is not just wanting to be a progressive gadfly, but to actually reach across the aisle to push for policy ideas.” There is “absolutely” reason for concern, the person said.

Atop the panel, Warren would also have a strong position to shape the 2028 presidential debates on both sides.

“There’s very little doubt that the agenda of the Senate Banking Committee is going to overlap substantially with the core issues that the candidates in the 2028 election cycle are going to be grappling with,” said Dennis Kelleher, the outgoing leader of the progressive group Better Markets.

As Banking chair, Warren is expected to try to recruit Republicans in a crackdown on artificial intelligence — specifically restrictions on chip giant Nvidia’s exports to China, which already has some GOP support — and a follow-up of this year’s bipartisan housing law that sought to rein in private equity’s role in the market, according to people close to the senator.

Some of President Donald Trump’s own populist ideas, like credit card interest rate caps and limits on stock buybacks for defense contractors, would provide fertile ground for Warren.

But Trump would also likely be Warren’s biggest obstacle, as he’s been resistant to embrace policy overlaps with her. He’s also been resistant to any AI restrictions.

Warren’s approach also threatens to expose rifts between GOP populists who have been ascendent under Trump and more mainstream conservatives.

Asked about the possibility of a Chair Warren, Sen. Mike Rounds, a more moderate South Dakota Republican, said he doesn’t “think anything would get done except lots of investigations and lots of accusations.”

What else we’re watching:

— LAWMAKERS CLAMOR FOR GAO v. TRUMP — Lawmakers are desperate for a government watchdog to step up and help them in their fight against the Trump administration over control of federal cash. The independent Government Accountability Office concluded earlier this week that the White House illegally withheld more than $1 billion for education and health care research programs — the latest in more than a half-dozen such findings GAO has published since the start of Trump’s second term. But the agency has yet to use its unique power to take the president to court to challenge those “impoundments,” and lawmakers who are tired of the administration running roughshod over their funding prerogatives want GAO to act.

— MURPHY’S DEFENSE FUNDING ULTIMATUM — Democrats should not approve Pentagon funding or the annual defense policy bill if they control Congress next year unless those bills would hasten the end of the Iran war, Sen. Chris Murphy told reporters Thursday. “We should make the end of the war a priority,” said the Foreign Relations Democrat who was returning from a trip to Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Murphy also accused Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and officials of attempting a “cover-up” of the war’s damage and obscuring its true cost after he was denied entry on a base in Qatar. Given the damage to bases in the region, Murphy also told reporters that the U.S. should “reconsider its footprint” in the Middle East.

Jasper Goodman, Jennifer Scholtes and Connor O’Brien contributed to this report.