In a recent CBS interview, Vice President J.D. Vance defended Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination for Director of National Intelligence against a line of questioning from CBS anchor Margaret Brennan. Brennan attempted to highlight criticisms of Gabbard from conservative outlets like The Wall Street Journal and National Review, which had called her a poor nominee due to her past defense of Edward Snowden and her skepticism about U.S. intelligence on the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons.
Brennan pressed Vance on whether these criticisms raised concerns about Gabbard’s qualifications. Vance firmly rejected this, pointing out that these publications had also attacked Donald Trump, and emphasized that the American people, not media outlets, determine presidential appointments. He argued that Gabbard’s extensive military background and high-level security clearances made her highly qualified for the role, noting her “impeccable character” and the trust she could bring back to the intelligence community, which he described as being “out of control” and involved in the “weaponization” of the political system.
Brennan countered by referencing Gabbard’s distrust of the intelligence services, but Vance remained confident in her qualifications and the Senate’s eventual approval, framing the discussion as one about reforming and restoring trust in the intelligence community. His support for Gabbard highlighted a broader shift in political discourse, where nominees are increasingly judged by their qualifications and plans for reform, rather than media-driven narratives.
