Tulsi Gabbard, the Smear Machine, and the Battle for America’s Intelligence Integrity

In a time of growing distrust in institutions and blatant political double standards, the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence (DNI) has exposed the festering rot in America’s political and intelligence establishment.

Gabbard is a decorated combat veteran and former congresswoman. Once hailed as a rising star in the Democrat party, she has since been relentlessly smeared—from being labeled a “Russian asset” to even being placed on a terrorist watchlist during the Biden-Harris administration. These attacks aren’t just absurd; they expose how deeply politicized the intelligence community has become.

As DNI, Gabbard would oversee 18 intelligence agencies with a $70 billion budget. Her pending Senate confirmation—where Republicans hold the majority—reignited the predictable chorus of partisan attacks. But the real issue isn’t her qualifications, it’s that Washington fears what her leadership represents: independence, accountability, and a return to intelligence gathering as a national security mission—not a political weapon.

The Clinton Smear and the Politics of Personal Destruction

The “Russian asset” lie leveled against Gabbard is as transparent as it is baseless. The smear originated with none other than Hillary Clinton, who insidiously suggested in 2019 that Gabbard was being “groomed” by Russia to sabotage the 2020 election. Clinton—a political figure infamous for conspiracy theories and deflection—provided no evidence because there was none.

The sheer recklessness of Clinton’s smear should have made it a political joke—yet much of the chattering political class and legacy media ran with it. CNN, The New York Times, and others breathlessly analyzed Clinton’s remark, amplifying it with vague speculation and partisan spin. The same media that demands proof of election fraud or censorship claims had no problem laundering an evidence-free accusation from a former presidential candidate with a track record of deception.

Gabbard did not stay silent. She fired back, calling Clinton “the queen of warmongers” and exposing the smear for what it was: a desperate attempt to destroy an independent voice that refused to fall in line with the Democrat party’s regime-change mantra.

This tried-and-true tactic of the political class and their media acolytes is as dirty as it is effective. Once told, a lie creates a self-perpetuating cycle—a narrative endlessly repeated and amplified, inflicting lasting damage despite never being legitimate in the first place.

The smear took on a life of its own, metastasizing into a media-approved slander that is still repeated today by Democrat operatives, former intelligence officials, internet trolls, and corporate media lackeys.

This phenomenon is how the politics of personal destruction works. The accusation doesn’t need to be true—it just needs to be repeated. The Clinton machine, aided by its intelligence community allies, set the narrative, and the press dutifully carried it forward, tarnishing Gabbard’s name without substantively addressing the facts.

The Syria Smear and the Intelligence Community’s Role

One of the most persistent falsehoods about Gabbard—parroted by both the media and former intelligence officials—is that she was an “apologist” for the Russian-backed Syrian regime. Balderdash.

This smear conveniently ignores that Gabbard’s stance on Syria was rooted in longstanding military skepticism of regime-change wars. As a combat veteran, she saw firsthand the catastrophic failures of U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya and refused to support another reckless war in Syria.

A RealClearInvestigations report methodically debunks this smear, showing that her critics selectively framed her 2017 fact-finding trip to Syria as an endorsement of Bashar al-Assad while ignoring the broader context.

Gabbard met with Syrian officials, including Assad, to gather firsthand intelligence—just as numerous U.S. diplomats and leaders have done with foreign adversaries. Yet the same intelligence community figures who cheered John Kerry’s diplomacy with Iran or Obama’s engagement with Cuba framed Gabbard’s visit as treasonous.

The accusation that she was sympathetic to Assad is not only false, it is laughably hypocritical. While Gabbard was vilified for engaging in dialogue, the Obama-Biden administration was funneling weapons to so-called “moderate rebels” in Syria—many of whom had direct ties to terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda affiliates.

The fact that former intelligence officials helped push the false Assad-Russia smear while staying silent on these actual policies exposes their selective outrage for what it is: partisan opportunism.

The Hunter Biden Laptop and the Intelligence Community’s Role

If there were any lingering doubts about the intelligence community’s descent into partisan activism, the Hunter Biden laptop debacle erased them. In October 2020, just weeks before the presidential election, 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter dismissing the laptop story as Russian disinformation. This action was an orchestrated political maneuver squarely meant to tip the scales in the United States presidential election.

The laptop was real. The contents were damning. And yet, the people who once claimed to be neutral guardians of national security helped bury a story that could have influenced voters. Some of the signatories were still on the CIA payroll—as contractors—when they affixed their names to this political stunt. 

The consequences of this deception were profound. Major news outlets and Big Tech platforms didn’t just report on the intelligence community’s false claims—they weaponized them to stifle legitimate journalism. In doing so, they influenced the course of a presidential election while the exact media figures who spent years decrying “foreign election interference” disregarded the interference from within our own institutions—and from within their own newsrooms. 

Regrettably, this episode was no anomaly—it was part of a broader pattern of intelligence officials manipulating political narratives. From the Steele dossier to the Mueller probe to the laptop cover-up, the intelligence establishment has repeatedly placed partisan interests above its duty to the American people.

Addressing the Real Issue: Unconstitutional Surveillance, Not Edward Snowden

The decision to discuss Edward Snowden at Gabbard’s senate confirmation hearing conflates her legitimate concerns over unconstitutional surveillance with an endorsement of Snowden’s actions.

Let’s be clear—Snowden broke the law. He knowingly disclosed classified information and fled the country. That is not in dispute, and Gabbard has never suggested otherwise. Yet her opponents deliberately blur the line between her condemnation of illegal government surveillance and endorsement of Snowden’s methods.

At her confirmation hearing, senators didn’t seem interested in debating the real issue—why American citizens were subjected to unconstitutional government surveillance. Instead, they fixated on Snowden, seemingly to sidestep the uncomfortable truth.

Even The New York Times acknowledged that while none of the senators defended the NSA’s illegal bulk collection of Americans’ phone records—because they couldn’t—they were far more eager to defend mass surveillance of foreign communications under Section 702. That shift wasn’t just an attempt to change the subject but a discernible move to avoid confronting the intelligence community’s growing credibility problem. Years of overreach, political interference, and surveillance abuses have badly damaged public trust.

The Real Problem: A Politicized Intelligence Apparatus

And here’s the rub: The intelligence community has repeatedly abused its authority, weaponizing surveillance against American citizens—often beyond the bounds of the law.

Tulsi Gabbard dared to question the abuse and that’s precisely why the establishment fears her.

That’s why they oppose her.

Not because she’s unqualified.

Not because she’s extreme.

But because she threatens the status quo.

The Leadership We Need

Tulsi Gabbard has been relentlessly attacked not because she is unqualified but because she is independent—independent of her former party, the perpetual war machine, and the entrenched political class.

But let’s be clear: The intelligence community’s failures don’t rest with the rank-and-file patriots who serve this country with honor. The problem is at the top—with leaders who have politicized intelligence, weaponized investigations, and eroded public trust to serve their agendas.

Confirming Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence is imperative. We need a leader who will restore integrity, demand accountability, and put national security ahead of politics. This is a rare opportunity to refocus our intelligence agencies on their mission: protecting the United States, not advancing partisan interests.

The attacks on Gabbard aren’t just about her. They expose an intelligence bureaucracy hijacked by political operatives, a leadership class that abandoned its principles long ago, and a system that fears accountability more than it fears failure.

America deserves better. The dedicated men and women of our intelligence agencies deserve better. And Tulsi Gabbard—who has endured smears, slander, and political warfare for daring to stand her ground—deserves far better. The country cannot afford another rubber-stamp bureaucrat willing to look the other way. It needs a leader who will demand accountability, restore credibility, and ensure intelligence serves its true purpose: safeguarding national security, not advancing partisan agendas.

It’s time to demand better.

Let her lead—and let accountability begin.

Charlton Allen is an attorney and former chief executive officer and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is the founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and the host of the Modern Federalist podcast.

CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons, unaltered.

American Thinker