Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) did not cite incompetence as the reason he believes the appointments of Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel to high level positions in U.S. intelligence — Gabbard is the Director of National Intelligence and Patel the FBI Director — endanger America’s national security.
Goldman asserted instead that U.S. intelligence operations are at risk of being hobbled internationally because the controversial Gabbard and Patel appointments create a trust deficit among America’s closest intelligence collaborators.
Responding to an article in England’s Daily Mail addressing U.S. intel actions including the recent Trump administration denial of intelligence to Ukraine, Goldman wrote: “This was always the risk with Gabbard and Patel at the head of our intelligence gathering. We not only will lose our own sources who won’t trust them, but we will lose intelligence from our close allies. This makes a terrorist attack on US soil much more likely.”
The article suggested that a “Four Eyes” intelligence working group could emerge that excludes the U.S.. While leaving the long-established “Five Eyes” intelligence partnership intact between the U.S., Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, this smaller configuration would free the non-U.S. nations in the alliance to act more autonomously to defend and assist allies when the U.S. steps back.
The need purportedly arose when the Trump administration, opting not to share certain intelligence with Ukraine, also required that no other “Five Eyes” nation share U.S.-generated intelligence with the war-torn ally. Goldman concludes that the intel arrangement functioning as it does presently leaves the U.S. less informed and more vulnerable.
[Anticipating the Five Eyes rift, FOX News wrote in November that “America’s intelligence-sharing allies are reportedly wary of Gabbard’s nomination. Analysts warn that her leadership could strain trust within the Five Eyes alliance” and quoted a Canadian defense official who said Gabbard’s appointment “would negatively affect the Five Eyes, which is an extremely close partnership premised on an extraordinarily high level of trust.”]
Goldman is not alone in his suspicions about the effect of Gabbard and Patel, and the priorities of U.S. intelligence in the Trump 2.0 era.
Gabbard’s tenuous confirmation in a 52-48 revealed this concern was widespread among lawmakers, with Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joining Democrats in opposing her confirmation. (Notably, the previous Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines was confirmed on January 20, 2021 by a vote of 84-10.)
McConnell, citing what he characterized as Gabbard’s refusal to adequately condemn both Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Edward Snowden‘s actions, said that “entrusting the coordination of the intelligence community to someone who struggles to acknowledge these facts is an unnecessary risk.”
Patel’s vote was even closer, 51-49, with Republicans Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voting with Democrats against his confirmation. Again, such dissension in intelligence matters is a relative rarity: Patel’s FBI predecessor, the Republican Christopher Wray, was confirmed in a 92-5 vote.