Tulsi Gabbard Nomination Faces Turmoil as Republicans Mull Breaking Senate Rules

Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination for director of national intelligence is in jeopardy, prompting some Senate Republicans to consider breaking longstanding rules of the Senate Intelligence Committee to secure her confirmation.

According to Politico, discussions are underway among Republican senators to take the unusual step of making the committee’s vote on Gabbard’s nomination public—a process that has historically been conducted behind closed doors.

“The talk of forcing open the committee vote underscores concerns among some Republicans that Gabbard’s nomination could die before it even reaches the floor,”. The nomination faces significant hurdles due to the slim Republican majority on the committee, which holds a one-vote advantage.

This majority is further complicated by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), who has already broken with President Donald Trump in the past, most notably voting against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. One insider told Politico that the committee’s rules do not currently allow for public roll calls that detail individual members’ votes.

Changing these rules to enable a public vote on Gabbard’s nomination would be a substantial departure from standard procedures. Trump allies are reportedly urging Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-AR) to push for a public vote. However, it remains “unclear” whether Cotton has the authority to make such a unilateral decision to alter committee protocols.

Gabbard’s nomination has drawn bipartisan skepticism due to her controversial stances on major foreign policy issues. Critics point to her past comments on the Russia-Ukraine war, which some argue align closely with Kremlin propaganda. Additionally, her previous meetings with former Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad have fueled concerns over her suitability for the top intelligence role.

Republicans’ strategy to publicly expose the committee’s vote underscores the growing tension surrounding Gabbard’s confirmation. The move appears aimed at holding dissenting members accountable, especially as the nomination’s chances hinge on a unified Republican vote within the committee.

While Trump and his allies view Gabbard as a staunch defender of his administration’s policies, her divisive reputation complicates efforts to rally full Republican support. Furthermore, bipartisan skepticism may hinder her nomination even if it reaches the Senate floor.

The ongoing deliberations highlight the political stakes involved, with Republicans weighing whether to upend procedural norms to ensure Gabbard’s confirmation. Whether this strategy succeeds or fractures the party remains uncertain. As pressure mounts, the decision to alter committee rules and push for a public vote may serve as a litmus test for Gabbard’s prospects and the broader dynamics of Senate politics.