Donald Trump nominated Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence. That’s causing mayhem.
And now Trump’s top enemy is planning to nuke his appointments.
John Bolton Calls for FBI Investigations into Tulsi Gabbard and Matt Gaetz Before Senate Confirmation Hearings
Former National Security Adviser John Bolton made headlines on Wednesday when he stated that former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) — who have been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump for director of national intelligence and attorney general, respectively — should not proceed with their Senate confirmation hearings until they undergo FBI investigations.
In an interview on NewsNation’s The Hill, Bolton argued that formal probes into the two nominees would send a strong message to China that the U.S. is serious about its national security. Bolton was blunt in his assessment, telling anchor Blake Burman, “I don’t think either she or Matt Gaetz ought to have a confirmation hearing until they have both had full-field FBI investigations.” He further emphasized the importance of this action, saying, “And then I think the Chinese would say, ‘Maybe they are serious.’”
When Burman pressed Bolton on whether he was specifically calling for Gabbard to be investigated, Bolton confirmed his stance, saying, “I think so.” He elaborated, stating that Gabbard’s past espousal of Russian propaganda raised serious concerns. “Given the Russian propaganda that she has espoused over the past period of time, I think she’s a serious threat to our national security,” Bolton said.
Throughout the interview, Bolton did not hold back his criticism of Trump’s cabinet picks, calling Gabbard and Gaetz the “two worst Cabinet appointments in recent history.” Bolton was particularly scathing when discussing Gabbard’s nomination for director of national intelligence.
“With his 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,” Bolton remarked. He then added, “Up until a few hours ago, I would have said that was the worst Cabinet appointment in recent American history. Of course, since Matt Gaetz’s nomination, he clearly has taken the lead on that score.”
One of the best signs that @realDonaldTrump chose the best people!
Warmonger John Bolton on Trump appointing Tulsi Gabbard and Matt Gaetz: “the worst Cabinet-level appointments in history” pic.twitter.com/Iybx66WAZA
— Joel Fischer 🇺🇸 (@realJoelFischer) November 14, 2024
Bolton also voiced concern about the potential implications of Gabbard’s appointment for U.S. intelligence efforts, particularly in relation to China. “It’s not an indication that the administration is serious about one of the most important aspects of dealing with a threat like China, which is intelligence,” Bolton stated, underlining his belief that both nominations signal troubling signals about the administration’s commitment to national security.
Tulsi Gabbard No Stranger To Baseless Attacks
Bolton is touching on a sentiment around Tulsi Gabbard that she’s somehow a “foreign asset”, particularly for the Russian government. Many Americans found this hateful rhetoric appalling, considering that Tulsi Gabbard is literally an active member of the U.S. military and is highly regarded in that world.
When Tulsi Gabbard ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020, she found herself under relentless attack from both the political establishment and segments of the media, but one of the most pernicious charges leveled against her was the accusation that she was a “Russian asset.” This claim, primarily pushed by prominent figures on the Left, was not only unfounded but also reflected a broader hostility toward her anti-war stance and criticism of the political status quo.
Gabbard, a former U.S. Army officer and representative from Hawaii, has long been an outspoken advocate for de-escalating military interventionism, ending “endless wars,” and pursuing a foreign policy focused on diplomacy and peace. These positions put her at odds with the Democratic establishment, many of whom supported hawkish foreign policies. For a politician challenging the prevailing bipartisan consensus on military intervention, it wasn’t long before the smear machine went into overdrive.
The “Russian asset” narrative took off in part due to Gabbard’s criticism of U.S. involvement in regime change wars, particularly in Syria and Ukraine. Her calls to withdraw American troops from the Middle East and her refusal to endorse policies that would escalate tensions with Russia made her a target for those who viewed such positions as ideologically suspect or even unpatriotic. Critics argued that her critiques of U.S. foreign policy played into Russian hands, suggesting that she was either deliberately or unwittingly parroting Kremlin talking points.
The accusation gained further traction after Gabbard appeared on Fox News to discuss her positions, and some in the mainstream media used her platform on the network to paint her as sympathetic to Russian interests. Her statement that the U.S. should avoid war with Russia, especially over issues like Ukraine, was distorted into a narrative of treason or subversion. Never mind that Gabbard had also been a vocal critic of Russian interference in U.S. elections — her condemnation of U.S. military adventurism in places like Syria and her reluctance to escalate tensions with Russia were enough to prompt wild accusations.
These attacks reached a fever pitch during the 2020 Democratic primary. Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, even publicly suggested that Gabbard was being groomed by Russia to run as a third-party candidate to spoil the election. Such claims were not only baseless but reflected a growing desperation to discredit anyone who dared to question the establishment’s foreign policy consensus.
The accusations of Gabbard being a Russian asset were unfair for several reasons. First and foremost, they misrepresented her foreign policy philosophy, which is grounded in a genuine belief in diplomacy and the preservation of peace — not in supporting foreign autocracies. Second, they served to stifle debate on important issues like military intervention, regime change, and the U.S.’s role in global conflicts. Rather than engaging with her arguments, detractors sought to delegitimize her as a voice of opposition to the political establishment.
The smear campaign also highlighted the increasing tendency within both political parties to vilify anti-war voices. Whether it’s the establishment Left or the Right, any politician who advocates for peace and diplomacy — especially someone like Gabbard, who is willing to criticize both Republican and Democratic foreign policy — becomes a convenient target for defamation.
In reality, Tulsi Gabbard’s anti-war activism is a testament to her commitment to putting American lives and resources before military adventurism. Her focus has always been on the well-being of the American people, and her criticisms of U.S. foreign policy reflect a deep understanding of the consequences of endless war — not a hidden agenda tied to foreign powers.
The Conservative Column will keep you updated on any major updates to the Trump administration’s incoming term.
