Recent social media posts have raised concerns that the U.S. Senate vote on whether to confirm Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence (DNI) may be held confidentially.
Charlie Kirk was one of the accounts which mentioned that the vote on Gabbard’s nomination may take place in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility or SCIF with the vote tallies kept secret from the American people.
I’m told that the vote for Tulsi Gabbard might be done privately in a SCIF – with the vote tallies kept secret from the American people.
This is outrageous and wrong.
The American people deserve to know how THEIR Senators vote on Trump’s nominees!
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) January 28, 2025
Kirk is one of numerous voices speaking out about the potential loss of transparency in governmental processes such secrecy procedures would represent.
Gabbard has faced vocal opposition from Republican and Democratic members of Congress over her opposition to both the PATRIOT Act and Section 702 of the FISA Amendment which allows warrantless government surveillance to take violate the right to privacy of American citizens.
While Gabbard is one of three of Trump’s cabinet nominees undergoing contentious confirmation hearings this week, her differences with the way the Intelligence community operates are based primarily on policies.
Nearly 100 former intelligence officials signed a letter criticizing Gabbard’s nomination as the Director of National Intelligence and saying she would be “the least experienced” DNI to hold that position since it was created in 2004.
However, Fox News reports that dozens of former intel officials have penned a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, urging them to confirm Gabbard and expressing confidence that she will “begin undoing the gross politicization that has come to characterize intelligence bureaucracies.”
Gabbard has held high security clearances for at least a decade of her military career and has served honorably in the armed forces.
The effort to dismantle her nomination as DNI appears to be based less on her inexperience and more on her willingness to dismantle the weaponization of government, especially within the intelligence community.
The American people deserve to know exactly who voted for Gabbard and who voted against her.
There’s no need for secrecy on this vote, unless the D.C. swamp has something it’s trying to hide.
Start the discussion at community.amgreatness.com