Dem
47
GOP
53
Yesterday, the Senate confirmed Tulsi Gabbard as DNI by a vote of 52-48. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was the only Republican to vote against her, despite virtually every Republican knowing she is not only completely unqualified for the job, but might be an actual Russian asset. At best, she is a useful idiot who often takes Russia's side in disputes with the U.S. During her hearing, she defended Edward Snowden for leaking secret defense documents. The DNI is expected to keep secrets... well, secret, and not approve of folks leaking them. Many senators were very upset by this, but still voted for her. Such is the power of Donald Trump and the money of Elon Musk. One elderly senator who will probably retire next year was the only one who cared enough about national security to oppose a possible Russian asset as the country's top spy.
Trump probably knows Gabbard can't be trusted with the nation's secrets, but picking her was a dare he gave the Senate, as in "I dare you to defy me and refuse to confirm my pick for DNI, even though she is totally unqualified and a threat to national security. I dare you." And all but one caved, even the two women from Alaska and Maine who sometimes defy Trump. Confirming Robert Kennedy Jr. as secretary of HHS might merely result in thousands of unvaccinated kids dying of measles and polio. But the confirmation of Pete Hegseth and now Gabbard are serious risks to national security and all the senators know it. Still, they are too scared of Trump to act on this knowledge.
Other countries were expecting this. Many allies are now seriously considering whether they should share sensitive intelligence information with Gabbard. In the past, the U.S. and its allies always shared sensitive information, but now some countries may withhold it, for fear that Gabbard will intentionally or accidentally blab it to Russia and other enemies of the U.S. This could mean that the U.S. will no longer benefit from information their spies get, for fear that Gabbard will leak the information or worse yet, out the spies. The consequence is that Gabbard will seriously weaken the U.S. in a hostile world.
In some cases, foreign intelligence services may bypass the chain of command—which is a real no-no—and give sensitive information to John Ratcliffe, the director of the CIA, on his promise not to tell Gabbard. Ratcliffe is a professional and would understand the need for this. Needless to say, Gabbard would go bonkers if she discovered this, but CIA directors are generally pretty good about keeping stuff secret. So when she asks him, say: "What do the Brits know about Putin's health?" he could say: "They don't know anything," even when they do and he knows what they know. Needless to say, having the 18 spy agencies under Gabbard's command intentionally keeping her in the dark about many things because they don't trust her can't be good for national security. It also makes coordination difficult. There may be things that Ratcliffe knows that the DoD doesn't know he knows because he won't tell Gabbard. She is the one who is supposed to coordinate the multiple agencies, and if they won't tell her anything because they don't trust her, there won't be much coordination. (V)