Connect with us

Politics

Column: Tulsi Gabbard as intelligence czar? The Trump Cabinet pick most likely to fail

Published

on

Column: Tulsi Gabbard as intelligence czar? The Trump Cabinet pick most likely to fail

Tulsi Gabbard, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to oversee the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies, is a woman of strong views, vigorously expressed.

A former Bernie Sanders Democrat, she now says the Democratic Party is controlled by “an elitist cabal of warmongers” that includes “rogue intelligence and law enforcement agents.” President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, she wrote recently, are merely puppets of that cabal.

A staunch anti-interventionist who opposes almost any use of U.S. military force, the former congresswoman from Hawaii blames Biden — not Vladimir Putin — for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

All of which echoes Trump’s views, especially his conviction that the FBI, CIA and other national security agencies have plotted ceaselessly against him.

On the other hand, during Trump’s first term in the White House, she also complained that he was too tough on Iran and denounced him for acting like “Saudi Arabia’s bitch.”

Advertisement

This year, though, she rallied to his side and endorsed him for promising to seek a thaw with Russia. She was a frequent, telegenic surrogate for his campaign on Fox News. No wonder Trump decided she was the perfect choice to guard the nation’s secrets as director of national intelligence.

National security veterans from both parties are not only unimpressed; they’re alarmed.

“We normally look for demonstrated competence in a nominee,” said Gregory F. Treverton, a former top intelligence official during the Obama administration who now teaches at USC. “This is a case of demonstrated incompetence. … She was obviously selected solely because she’s loyal to Trump.”

“I think she’s a serious threat to our national security,” John Bolton, who served as Trump’s national security advisor during his first term, said in a television interview. “Her judgment is nonexistent.”

Among Republicans in the Senate, Gabbard’s nomination elicited a few glowing endorsements — but an impressive list of noncommittal statements.

Advertisement

“That’s a nominee that illustrates the importance of a full background check,” said Susan Collins of Maine, one of the GOP senators who helped sink the nomination of former Rep. Matt Gaetz for attorney general last month.

Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said he “will have a lot of questions.” “It’s really important that we have leadership there that’s able to support” the intelligence agencies, he added.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, formerly the GOP’s second-ranking Senate leader, gave a speech praising most of Trump’s national security nominees by name — but left Gabbard conspicuously off the list. A Cornyn aide declined to say whether the omission was deliberate.

To Senate-watchers, the meaning of all that terseness was clear: If any of Trump’s nominees are in danger, Gabbard is at the top of the list.

Her long record as a foreign policy dissident under both Democratic and Republican presidents will give Senate hawks plenty to scrutinize — and, perhaps, to excoriate.

Advertisement

She not only blamed Biden for Russia’s war on Ukraine (she claims he failed to acknowledge Putin’s “legitimate security concerns” and demanded the United States cut off military aid to Kyiv. She also charged that the U.S. was funding dangerous biological laboratories in Ukraine — “parroting fake Russian propaganda,” Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah complained.

On the Syrian civil war, Gabbard opposed U.S. aid to the rebels fighting the brutal regime of Bashar Assad, met with the authoritarian leader and defended him against the allegations that he used chemical weapons on his own people. Assad, who is propped up by military aid from Iran and Russia, “is not the enemy of the United States,” she said.

She defended Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, who were indicted for masterminding two of the biggest leaks of intelligence secrets in U.S. history — a position unlikely to endear her to intelligence community professionals or hawks in the Senate.

Gabbard also criticized Trump during his first term for military intervention, including for bombing Syrian government forces in 2017 in retaliation for Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians.

She condemned Trump for ordering the assassination of Iran’s Gen. Qassem Soleimani in 2020, and for imposing harsh economic sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. She also excoriated Trump for supporting Saudi Arabia’s authoritarian regime in exchange for military purchases — the reason she called him “Saudi Arabia’s bitch.”

Advertisement

Trump does not appear to have held any of that against her — especially after she began campaigning for him. And, of course, he shares Gabbard’s view of the CIA as a rogue agency that needs to be brought to heel.

That’s the core of the problem with her nomination, Treverton argues.

“She’s going to be at war with the intelligence community,” he said. “She’ll politicize it in ways that are obvious and not obvious.”

Intelligence, he added, is an area in which political loyalty is not always a cardinal virtue.

“If the president surrounds himself with yes-men and yes-women, that’s dangerous,” he said. “You need to encourage intelligence officers to come forward with bad news, instead of telling leaders only what they want to hear.”

Advertisement

Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the former Senate leader, has said he plans to use his remaining time in the Senate to oppose the rising isolationism in his party.

He has criticized Trump’s foreign policy slogan, “America First,” as similar to “the language they used in the ‘20s and ‘30s.” He has said pushing back against Putin and his allies, especially in Ukraine, must be a top priority — no matter what Trump and Gabbard think.

There are at least a dozen national security Republicans in the Senate — “Reagan Republicans,” in McConnell’s words — who share that view. With the GOP holding a 53-47 majority, it would take only four to sink a nomination.

Will McConnell and other Russia hawks have the courage of their convictions? This nomination would be a good place to start.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

Published

on

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

transcript

transcript

Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”

Advertisement
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

January 8, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump calls for $1.5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

Published

on

Trump calls for .5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s budget. 

“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening. 

“This will allow us to build the “Dream Military” that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.” 

The president said he came up with the number after tariff revenues created a surplus of cash. He claimed the levies were bringing in enough money to pay for both a major boost to the defense budget “easily,” pay down the national debt, which is over $38 trillion, and offer “a substantial dividend to moderate income patriots.”

Advertisement

SENATE SENDS $901B DEFENSE BILL TO TRUMP AFTER CLASHES OVER BOAT STRIKE, DC AIRSPACE

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s record budget.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the increased budget would cost about $5 trillion from 2027 to 2035, or $5.7 trillion with interest. Tariff revenues, the group found, would cover about half the cost – $2.5 trillion or $3 trillion with interest. 

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major case Friday that will determine the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy.

Advertisement

CONGRESS UNVEILS $900B DEFENSE BILL TARGETING CHINA WITH TECH BANS, INVESTMENT CRACKDOWN, US TROOP PAY RAISE

This year the defense budget is expected to breach $1 trillion for the first time thanks to a $150 billion reconciliation bill Congress passed to boost the expected $900 billion defense spending legislation for fiscal year 2026. Congress has yet to pass a full-year defense budget for 2026.

Some Republicans have long called for a major increase to defense spending to bring the topline total to 5% of GDP, as the $1.5 trillion budget would do, up from the current 3.5%.

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships. (Lockheed Martin via Reuters)

Trump has ramped up pressure on Europe to increase its national security spending to 5% of GDP – 3.5% on core military requirements and 1.5% on defense-related areas like cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.

Advertisement

Trump’s budget announcement came hours after defense stocks took a dip when he condemned the performance rates of major defense contractors. In a separate Truth Social post he announced he would not allow defense firms to buy back their own stocks, offer large salaries to executives or issue dividends to shareholders. 

“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he said. 

“​Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly.”

U.S. Army soldiers stand near an armored military vehicle on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria’s northeastern Hasakeh province, bordering Turkey, on March 27, 2023.  (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)

He said that executives would not be allowed to make above $5 million until they build new production plants.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation are generally governed by securities law, state corporate law and private contracts, and cannot be broadly restricted without congressional action.

An executive order the White House released Wednesday frames the restrictions as conditions on future defense contracts, rather than a blanket prohibition. The order directs the secretary of war to ensure that new contracts include provisions barring stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance or inadequate production, as determined by the Pentagon.

Continue Reading

Politics

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Published

on

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.

The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.

“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”

Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.

The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.

Advertisement

The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.

“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.

“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”

The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.

“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending