We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

There is a pattern developing with regard to President-elect Donald Trump’s recent nominations: He announces someone apparently well suited to executing the agenda he successfully campaigned on; those with vested interests in the status quo panic; and establishmentarians viciously attack the nominees, pleading with nominal Republicans in the U.S. Senate to prevent their confirmation.

This pattern has been repeated for multiple picks, including
former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Although virtually all of Trump’s nominations have ruffled feathers, his choice of Lt. Col. Tulsi Gabbard to serve as the director of national intelligence appears to have inspired a special kind of unease among Democratic lawmakers, the liberal media, and elements of the intelligence community.

The media

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols rushed to
characterize Gabbard’s nomination as a “national security risk,” complaining that she previously suggested NATO might have had something to do with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and that Syria did not pose a direct threat to the United States.

“Gabbard is a classic case of ‘horseshoe’ politics,” Nichols warned. “Her views can seem both extremely left and extremely right, which is probably why people such as Tucker Carlson — a conservative who has turned into … whatever pro-Russia right-wingers are called now — have taken a liking to the former Democrat (who was previously a Republican and is now again a member of the GOP).”

The Washington Examiner’s Tom Rogan
suggested that by nominating Gabbard, Trump — who was kneecapped in his first term by a malignant counterintelligence investigation and whose 2020 political adversary was given narrative cover prior to the election by CIA contractors and intelligence community alumni — “is putting his distrust of the intelligence community before the critical interests of national security.”

After trotting out the Syria and Russia-themed attacks against Gabbard, then insinuating that she is a sympathizer with the communist Chinese regime, Rogan warned that if confirmed, she would supervise “all U.S. intelligence agencies’ collection, analysis, and mission efforts and the production and dissemination of the U.S. government’s most sensitive intelligence reporting and analysis. This includes knowledge of spies buried deep inside foreign governments and terrorist organizations.”

‘This appointment is sending shock waves here in the United States.’

Bill Kristol quoted Jonathan Last, editor of the neocon blog the Bulwark, as writing, “Making Gabbard DNI simply makes no sense. … Or rather, it makes no sense for America. For Russia, DNI Gabbard makes all the sense in the world.”

Last appeared particularly upset over Gabbard’s opposition to fruitless foreign entanglements and ineffectual U.S. sanctions.

Dems and spooks spooked

“This appointment is sending shock waves here in the United States but also around the globe,” John Brennan, former director of the CIA and chief counterterrorism adviser to former President Barack Obama,
said in conversation with MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace.

Brennan, one of the signatories of the infamous Hunter Biden “intel” letter, likened the 18 intelligence agencies that Gabbard would oversee to an orchestra, suggesting that she likely doesn’t even know what instruments are being played.

Former Bush adviser John Bolton, a key proponent of America’s disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq,
suggested to NewsNation’s “The Hill” that with Trump’s “announcement of Tulsi Gabbard to be the director of national intelligence, he’s sending a signal that we have lost our mind when it comes to collecting intelligence.”

One former senior intelligence official who spoke under the condition of anonymity
told Politico that the choice was a “left turn and off the bridge.”

Another intelligence official warned that America’s allies, including Israel, might withhold information from Washington if Gabbard were the DNI, adding, “What some allies share may now be shaped by political goals rather than professional intelligence sharing.”

An unnamed “Western security source” similarly
suggested to Reuters that Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand may be less forthcoming about the intelligence they collect, stressing that foreign nations believe Trump’s appointments all lean in the “wrong direction.”

Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger (Va.), a former CIA officer who now warms a chair on the House Intelligence Committee,
suggested on X that Gabbard, who served in Iraq and Kuwait, would be an oath-breaker.

“The men and women of the U.S. Intelligence community honor their oaths by collecting the vital intelligence that keeps our fellow Americans safe. The global threats we face require a Director of National Intelligence who would do the same. Tulsi Gabbard is not that person,” wrote Spanberger.

The former spook, echoing Nichols, appears to have unwittingly highlighted what has the establishment panicking,
telling The Hill, “The DNI has access to every single secret that the United States has, every single bit of information that we know. … It’s the keys to the intelligence community kingdom.”

Larry Pfeiffer, former chief of staff at the CIA under the Bush administration, told The Hill, “Some of the statements she has made through the years that sound like they came right out of the Kremlin’s talking points paper are a little bit alarming. Her cozying up to Bashar al-Assad and being an apologist for him as well just raise questions in my mind. Is that really the best person to put in charge of this very complicated, very sensitive operation that is the U.S. intel community?”

Jamil Jaffer, a former House Intelligence Committee staffer and national security prosecutor, told The Hill, “What is unusual here is you’ve got somebody who’s had such a long and vociferous track record of saying things that are factually incorrect, that seem to give aid and comfort to U.S. adversaries and that undermine the very people they should be representing at the principals committee.”

As with Hegseth and Gaetz’s critics, those denouncing Gabbard appear to be exponents of the very worldview and policy conventions that Trump was effectively elected to obliterate.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!