In a stunning announcement that has left many foreign policy experts scratching their heads, President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Tulsi Gabbard to serve as the next Director of National Intelligence (DNI). While Gabbard’s political career has been nothing if not unconventional, this nomination comes as a shock to many who question her controversial stances on authoritarian regimes and her past comments on the Ukraine conflict.

Tulsi Gabbard: Maverick or Misguided?

Let’s start by acknowledging that Gabbard is a polarizing figure. A former Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate, she’s carved out a unique spot in the political landscape, often defying her party’s leadership. For that, she has earned some respect from conservatives who admire her anti-establishment streak and willingness to challenge the status quo. However, it’s Gabbard’s foreign policy record that raises serious questions about her fitness to serve as DNI.

Gabbard has consistently positioned herself as an anti-interventionist, opposing what she sees as reckless U.S. involvement in endless wars. In theory, this sounds like a sensible, conservative approach. Who wants another Afghanistan, right? But in practice, her stances have often looked less like prudent restraint and more like outright appeasement of brutal dictators.

In 2017, she faced intense backlash for meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—a man known for using chemical weapons against his own people. Assad is no friend of freedom, and cozying up to him doesn’t exactly scream “pro-democracy.” Yet Gabbard seemed determined to paint him as a misunderstood leader caught up in a complex civil conflict. The problem is, when you start making excuses for mass murderers, you end up compromising on core American values. Freedom, human dignity, and the right of people to self-determination shouldn’t be up for negotiation.

A Troubling Track Record on Ukraine

But Gabbard’s views on Russia and Ukraine might be even more problematic. In the wake of Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, Gabbard questioned the value of U.S. support for Ukraine, suggesting that the country isn’t a democracy. Let’s be clear: while Ukraine is not a perfect democracy (and show me one that is), it is a sovereign nation fighting for its survival against an aggressive authoritarian regime.

This is not some obscure conflict happening in a far-off land; it’s a direct challenge to the international order. If we let Putin’s invasion stand unopposed, what kind of message does that send to other dictators with imperial ambitions? And make no mistake: Russia’s invasion is an attempt to snuff out a fledgling democracy and expand its authoritarian reach. Gabbard’s reluctance to stand up for Ukraine in this context is deeply concerning.

In fact, her comments about “U.S.-backed biolabs” in Ukraine, which echo Russian propaganda, were not just irresponsible—they were reckless. Whether she intended it or not, Gabbard’s words gave credence to a conspiracy theory designed to justify Russian aggression. At best, it was a lapse in judgment. At worst, it calls into question her loyalty to American interests over foreign adversaries.

A Role That Demands Clarity and Conviction

As Director of National Intelligence, Gabbard would be tasked with overseeing the entire U.S. intelligence community. This is a position that requires a firm grasp of global threats and a clear-eyed view of who our friends and enemies are. Gabbard’s mixed signals on authoritarian leaders like Assad and Putin are concerning because the DNI needs to provide unambiguous, accurate intelligence assessments to our nation’s leaders.

We cannot afford to have someone in this role who might be inclined to give authoritarian regimes the benefit of the doubt. America’s national security depends on the strength of our alliances and the clarity of our principles. In a world where Russia is actively undermining Western democracies, and China is exerting its influence across the globe, we need a DNI who sees these threats for what they are—not someone who has, at times, appeared more sympathetic to dictators than to democratic allies.

Conclusion

It’s critical that we stand for truth and justice. Supporting Ukraine’s right to defend itself from a foreign invader isn’t just a matter of politics—it’s a matter of principle. The Bible tells us to “defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy” (Psalm 82:3). In this conflict, it’s clear that the people of Ukraine are the afflicted, standing against a Russian regime that has shown little regard for human life or international law.

While Trump’s pick may reflect his preference for unconventional choices, this one feels like a misstep. Gabbard’s track record suggests she may not be the firm, anti-authoritarian voice that America needs at this critical moment. We should be cautious about anyone who has shown a willingness to defend tyrants or to parrot the talking points of our adversaries.

The United States needs leaders who will defend democracy and freedom, not make excuses for those who would destroy it. As we watch the confirmation process unfold, we should pray for wisdom and discernment, both for our elected officials and for Gabbard herself. Because the stakes are too high for us to get this wrong.

Let us stand firm in our support for Ukraine, remain vigilant against authoritarian threats, and hold fast to our values of freedom and justice. That’s the kind of leadership America needs, now more than ever.