This is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”
Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.
Today's read: 16 minutes.
👂
Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Kash Patel are among President Trump's most polarizing nominees. We break down everything that happened during their confirmation hearings.
Today's topic.
The confirmation hearings of Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Kash Patel. On Thursday, Senate committees held hearings to consider the nominations of Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Kash Patel as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). While most of President Donald Trump’s nominees have been confirmed by the Senate with bipartisan support — including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem — Gabbard, Kennedy, and Patel’s outlook is the most uncertain of Trump’s remaining nominees.
In today’s special Friday edition, we’ll cover their Senate hearings in a truncated version of our standard Tangle format with an overview of each hearing, perspectives from writers on the left and right, and our take.
Gabbard’s hearing.
Tulsi Gabbard is President Trump’s nominee for director of national intelligence (DNI). On Thursday, the Senate Intelligence Committee questioned her for nearly three hours in a hearing that focused on her foreign policy views and past stances on issues like Russia, Syria, and surveillance practices by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Back up: Gabbard is a military veteran and former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii who served in the House of Representatives from 2013–2021. In 2022, Gabbard left the Democratic Party and registered as an independent before joining the Republican Party in October 2024 to support Trump.
During the hearing, several senators asked Gabbard about her views on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which authorizes intelligence agencies to collect information on potential national security threats without a warrant (the law does not allow for explicit targeting of U.S. citizens, but through Section 702, the data and communications of U.S. citizens may be incidentally collected, retained and accessed in “backdoor searches”). Gabbard previously worked to repeal the law, but told senators at the hearing that she now supports it.
Gabbard was also asked to explain her 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and subsequent skepticism about whether Assad used chemical weapons against his people. Gabbard said she went to Syria to ask Assad “tough questions,” and that she had “no love for Assad or Gadhafi or any dictator.”
A key point in the hearing came when Gabbard refused to call Edward Snowden (the National Security Agency whistleblower who leaked information about America’s global surveillance programs in 2013) “a traitor,” although she said that he “broke the law.” Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee expressed concern about Gabbard’s past support of Snowden, and an anonymous GOP Senate aide stated that Gabbard’s “non-answer could have just cost her the nomination.”
The Intelligence Committee will vote in the coming days on whether to advance her nomination to a vote of the full Senate.
Kennedy’s hearing.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is President Trump’s pick for secretary of Health and Human Services. The two formed an alliance in the final months of the presidential race, with Kennedy dropping his third-party bid and endorsing Trump in August. We covered Kennedy’s campaign and endorsement here.
Kennedy had two hearings this week, appearing before the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on Thursday. In the first hearing, Kennedy espoused support for vaccines, saying he believes that they “play a critical role in healthcare.” However, several Democrats questioned his past statements about vaccines and the Covid-19 pandemic, claiming that Kennedy regularly trafficked in conspiracy theories (which he denied). Kennedy also appeared to confuse the purpose of Medicare and Medicaid during questioning from Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA). Separately, Kennedy said he would work to implement "whatever" position President Trump takes on regulating the abortion pill mifepristone.
In Thursday’s hearing, Kennedy faced more questions about his stance on vaccines. Sen. Cassidy again asked Kennedy to state whether he believed that the measles and Hepatitis B vaccines cause autism, to which Kennedy replied that he would review data and studies on the vaccinations and make a determination. Cassidy’s support for Kennedy’s nomination is uncertain, and the senator said he was concerned by Kennedy’s history of “undermining confidence in vaccines with unfounded or misleading arguments.” However, most Republican senators expressed support for Kennedy and said they expected him to be confirmed.
The Senate Finance Committee will vote on the nomination in the coming days.
Patel’s hearing.
Kash Patel is Trump’s nominee for FBI director. On Thursday, Patel sat for a five-hour hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee. Members from both parties asked Patel about the politicization of the FBI, while Democrats scrutinized Patel’s previous statements about January 6, QAnon conspiracy theories, and for keeping a list of names to investigate. We covered Trump’s nomination of Patel here.
Back up: Unlike other Senate-confirmed appointments, the FBI head serves a 10-year term. Though the president can fire the director for any reason, that person typically continues to serve in that role when a new administration begins. Former FBI director Christopher Wray had three years left on his term, which began when President Trump appointed him in 2017, but resigned ahead of Trump’s inauguration after the then-president-elect indicated he would remove Wray for his role in the classified documents investigation.
Patel faced sharp questioning from Democrats throughout the hearing. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) rebuked Patel for calling the 2020 presidential election a “fraud” and for publishing an “enemies list” in his 2023 book Government Gangsters; Patel called the claims “partial statements” and “false.” In response to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asking if he supported a blanket pardon for those convicted of crimes on January 6, Patel answered, “I do not agree with the commutation of any sentence of any individual who committed violence against law enforcement."
During the hearing, members of the committee appeared split along party lines on Patel’s nomination. “There is an unfathomable difference between a seeming facade being constructed around this nominee here today, and what he has actually done and said in real life,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). “We want to be the Senate that confirms an FBI director that rights the ship, shows consistent respect for the rule of law and the Constitution, consistent respect for all law enforcement officers, and I absolutely believe you’re up to the task,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC).
The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to convene to vote on Patel’s confirmation within the next week.
The left is uniformly opposed to Gabbard’s nomination, criticizing her past stances on foreign policy issues and accusing her of political opportunism in her support for Trump. In The Washington Post, David Ignatius outlined three reasons to oppose her nomination: her lack of qualifications, her inconsistent stances on surveillance issues, and her statements on the war in Ukraine that could be construed as pro-Russia. In MSNBC, Matt Johnson questioned her meeting with former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and subsequent skepticism about whether he had used chemical weapons on civilians. “For a potential DNI, Gabbard’s yearslong campaign of questioning Assad’s use of chemical weapons reveals a startling inability to evaluate intelligence,” Johnson wrote.
Slate’s Fred Kaplan called Gabbard’s hearing “a total disaster,” saying her answers to questions about Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Edward Snowden, and the war in Ukraine were disqualifying. “If a flicker of sense still shines above a handful of seats on the Republican side of the Senate, Thursday’s hearing should mark the end of Tulsi Gabbard,” Kaplan wrote. Finally, in The New York Times, Ruth Ben-Ghiat argued Gabbard’s views on foreign affairs align with President Trump’s interest in deepening relationships with autocratic leaders. “Six years ago, Mr. Trump suggested he was open to closer relationships with the world’s dictators,” Ben-Ghiat said. “His nomination of Ms. Gabbard for director of national intelligence suggests that he intends to renew the invitation.”
The right is mixed on Gabbard’s nomination, but she has many supporters. In The American Conservative, Jake Mercier wrote about how her “realist, restraint-oriented approach to U.S. foreign policy” drew him to her 2019 presidential campaign even though she was still a Democrat at the time. Mercier praised Gabbard’s consistent stance against “unnecessary American intervention” in foreign conflicts and said she would bring a fresh voice to the Washington foreign policy establishment as DNI. National Review’s Michael Brendan Dougherty asked “what exactly are people mad at Tulsi Gabbard for doing?” Dougherty argued that Gabbard’s consistent anti-war stance is commendable, noting that past U.S. leaders have worked with “immoral” foreign leaders to achieve or maintain peace.
However, Gabbard also has detractors on the right. The Wall Street Journal editorial board said her apparent unfamiliarity with the purpose of key surveillance tools makes her unfit to be DNI. “The Senate can do Mr. Trump, and the country, a favor by rejecting a director of national intelligence who doesn’t understand the vital tools of the job,” the board wrote. In National Review, Noah Rothman wrote a rebuttal to Michael Brendan Dougherty’s piece, arguing that Gabbard has shown her personal beliefs cloud her ability to assess national security intelligence. In particular, her comments about Assad and chemical weapons show that “she subordinated the overwhelming assessment of Western intelligence agencies because that assessment might justify a policy she didn’t like,” Rothman said.
The right is split on Kennedy’s nomination, but his supporters argue he would be a transformative pick for HHS. In Fox News, Dr. Marc Siegel framed Kennedy as a “a disruptor and reformer” who is rightfully concerned about health risks to children that the medical establishment has ignored. “There is a certain cohesiveness to Bobby Kennedy’s approach,” Siegel wrote. “His overarching philosophy regarding Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) is sound. As a society, we weigh far too much, are too sedentary, are exposed to way too many chemicals in our food and our environment that add more inflammation and disease to our bodies.” Also in Fox News, David Marcus said Kennedy has earned a chance to lead after helping Trump to victory. The voters who Kennedy swung to Trump, Marcus argued, “are not going to take kindly to the bait and switch if oh-so-principled senators replace their reason for voting Republican with a run-of-the-mill establishment lackey.”
However, many other conservatives strongly oppose Kennedy and say his answers were disqualifying. The Wall Street Journal editorial board zeroed in on Kennedy’s exchange with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), lambasting his evasive answer when asked if he would bring lawsuits against drug makers in cases where he may have a financial stake. “Warren has an excellent point that Mr. Kennedy, as HHS Secretary, could have the ability to ‘kill off access to vaccines and make millions of dollars while he does it.’ This ought to trouble Republican Senators who profess to care about good government and public health,” the board wrote. Separately, The Washington Post’s George F. Will said Kennedy’s ascendence to the national stage “is a price we are still paying for the collapse of confidence in government that accelerated during covid-19.” Will noted that many Americans have valid reasons to distrust the health establishment that Kennedy rails against, but “an aroma of lunacy surrounds Kennedy’s enthusiasm for smashing the crockery of widely accepted scientific propositions that have been validated by scores of millions of lives saved.”
The left is critical of Kennedy’s performance at the hearing, and his comments deepened their concern about his nomination. The Boston Globe editorial board argued that Kennedy’s views would hurt all Americans. “Trump supporters depend on [HHS] services as much as Trump opponents,” the board wrote. “If only for them, Republican senators skeptical about Kennedy’s messianic arrogance need to vote no on his nomination.” Similarly, Ben Burgis wrote in MSNBC that “Kennedy isn’t ‘anti-establishment’ in any way that would actually help working-class people at the expense of wealthy plutocrats.” Burgis noted that Kennedy has repeatedly dismissed valid concerns that the U.S. healthcare system is too profit driven.
Others on the left saw the hearing as further confirmation that Kennedy’s loyalty lies with Trump above all else. In The New York Times, Michelle Cottle said Kenendy was poorly prepared for senators’ questions, but his shaky performance won’t matter as long as he retains Trump’s backing. “If the president is thinking of his cabinet secretaries more as entertaining front men and women than as top-tier leaders or managers, then Kennedy fits the bill better than most,” Cottle wrote. However, a few on the left suggested that Democrats are missing Kennedy’s appeal for a role like HHS secretary. In The Los Angeles Times, Lee Fang wrote that Kennedy’s “platform reads like a wish list for reformers: cracking down on toxic food additives, confronting corporate regulatory capture, and reducing drug prices. Most of all, Kennedy pledges a renewed look at the causes of cancer and other serious ailments — not simply the management of disease.” Fang argued that Democrats’ opposition to Kennedy is “a reflection of a groupthink psychology and the party’s drift away from its corporate accountability ethos.”
The left opposes Patel’s nomination, framing him as a nominee only qualified by his desire to target Trump’s political enemies. In MSNBC, Christian Schneider wrote, “Kash Patel’s only qualification for FBI director is his Trump sycophancy.” Schneider argued that Patel’s resume is unimpressive and he demonstrated no leadership qualities in his hearing, but his loyalty to Trump “is unshakable and thus the only thing that matters.” In The New York Times, Jeet Heer explored how Patel could undermine the FBI’s mission to remain independent from the president’s political directives, comparing him to a mafia figure. “The danger of Mr. Patel’s nomination is that Mr. Trump would have a consigliere in a position that is almost uniquely easy to abuse,” Heer wrote.
Others on the left highlight Patel’s advocacy for the January 6 rioters, questioning how his support for people who broke the law is compatible with a top law enforcement position. USA Today’s Chris Brennan noted how Patel’s prior comments about January 6 being used "as a tool to demonize half of America" align with Trump’s desire for an FBI director “willing to obscure the facts while telling an outlandishly false tale.” In The New Yorker, Tess Owen expressed concern that Patel would use the FBI to go after political enemies, writing that he has “made it clear that he sees himself and Trump as being united on their righteous campaign to destroy the very government they are meant to lead.”
The right, meanwhile, is optimistic about Patel as FBI director and mostly approves of his nomination coming out of the hearing. In The Daily Signal, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said the most pressing issue facing the FBI is a loss of trust among Americans of all political beliefs. Patel is the right person to earn back that trust with his “mix of traditional criminal justice experience and outside perspective that enables him to see very clearly where and how the FBI has strayed from its mission.” PJ Media’s Catherine Salgado noted how Patel had once been targeted (in the Trump-Russia probe) by the agency he is now nominated to lead. She argued this experience gives him the first-hand knowledge required to clean up the FBI’s abuses.
In City Journal, former FBI agent Pat McMonigle explored how Patel can help the agency. “At present, however, the institution is broken. The rank-and-file are grossly underpaid. Morale has cratered,” McMonigle wrote. “As director, you should reorient the Bureau away from its post-9/11 intelligence function and toward crime-fighting. Use your leadership role to advocate for hiring more special agents, whose ranks haven’t grown in decades.” Others criticized Democratic senators’ approach to the hearing, arguing they spent their time attacking Patel rather than learning how he would lead the FBI. In The Federalist, Beth Brelje wrote that Democrats “wasted the resources of the American people by using this time for their desperate attempts to flex their suddenly muted political power.”
Our take.
Reminder: "Our take" is a section where we give ourselves space to share analysis from our editorial team. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.
Tulsi Gabbard.
