Donald Trump’s nomination of Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence (DNI) has triggered a media frenzy, showcasing a well-coordinated campaign of attacks. Opponents, aided by activist journalists, are repeating divisive talking points to create fear and skepticism about Gabbard’s nomination. This strategy isn’t new; it’s the same playbook used to demonize Trump and his supporters since 2016. Let’s break it down.
The Playbook: Smear, Spin, Repeat
Opponents rely on a proven formula: use media allies to amplify criticism and paint Trump’s picks as “dangerous.” John Brennan, Obama’s former CIA Director, fired the opening salvo. On MSNBC, he claimed, “Cozying up to Putin as well as to Bashar al-Assad shows she doesn’t have the perspective needed for someone heading 18 intelligence agencies.” Words like “shockwaves” and “unserious pick” were repeated across outlets, creating an echo chamber of alarm.
The goal? To flood the public with fear-based narratives and undermine Trump’s nominee before her policies or qualifications can even be debated. It’s grassroots marketing on steroids—only the product being sold is division.
A Fearless Nominee
Tulsi Gabbard’s career speaks for itself. A combat veteran, former congresswoman, and vocal critic of the U.S.’s “forever wars,” she has consistently stood against reckless interventions. Her criticism of U.S. regime-change wars in Libya and Yemen, and her call to pardon whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, have made her a target for the establishment.
Gabbard has faced smears for years. She was called a Russian asset for questioning U.S. intelligence reports about Syria. During the 2020 Democratic primary, Kamala Harris dismissed her as an “apologist for Assad”—a line the media amplified without nuance. Yet, Gabbard has repeatedly stated: “There is no disputing that Bashar al-Assad is a brutal dictator.” Her focus has always been on avoiding reckless wars that harm America and destabilize regions.
Why the Establishment is Panicking
The backlash against Gabbard isn’t about her policies; it’s about her independence. She doesn’t fit neatly into the left-right dichotomy. She has criticized Democrats for embracing “woke” policies and Republicans for hawkish warmongering. Her nomination threatens the entrenched elite who thrive on a perpetual war machine.
When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed Gabbard is “not anti-war” but supports “pro-war individuals,” it was another example of empty rhetoric. Gabbard’s record proves otherwise: she opposed U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen and urged diplomacy with adversaries like North Korea. Her nuanced stance—hawkish on fighting terrorism but dovish on regime change—challenges the status quo.
The Bigger Picture
The attacks on Gabbard are part of a broader strategy. Trump’s America First agenda—whether through judicial appointments, trade policies, or national security picks—has always been met with orchestrated outrage. These campaigns aim to erode public trust in his administration and its choices.
Grassroots marketing has a dark side. Activist journalists use platforms to recycle the same points until they become “truth” in the public’s mind. Claims about Gabbard’s ties to “Hindu nationalists” or her praise of figures like Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi are cherry-picked to paint her as extreme. Her nuanced views are twisted to fit sensational headlines.
Think Beyond the Noise
It’s crucial to see through these tactics. Ask yourself: Why does the establishment fear someone like Gabbard? Why are the same voices that supported endless wars now branding her a threat? The answer lies in her independence. She represents a break from the uniparty consensus that prioritizes global interests over American ones.
Gabbard’s nomination challenges the deeply rooted system that profits from war and division. That’s why the attacks are relentless. But Americans should ask hard questions before accepting the media’s narrative at face value.
More on Trump’s Nominees: