Lt. Col. Tulsi Gabbard, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence (DNI), has sparked controversy by reversing her stance on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Once a staunch critic of the warrantless surveillance authority, Gabbard now supports its reauthorization, a dramatic pivot that has reignited debates over privacy and national security.
Section 702 authorizes the U.S. government to monitor foreign nationals outside the country with the help of electronic communication providers. However, it also permits the incidental collection of Americans’ communications if they interact with foreign targets. Critics argue this creates a loophole for warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens, a practice the FBI has been accused of exploiting on numerous occasions.
Eric Thompson Show
As a congresswoman representing Hawaii, Gabbard was one of Section 702’s fiercest opponents. She co-sponsored bipartisan legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to repeal the Patriot Act and dismantle the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. At the time, Gabbard condemned the surveillance programs as unconstitutional violations of Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights.
“The Fourth Amendment explicitly prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant based on probable cause,” Gabbard said in 2020. “Programs created under the Patriot Act and FISA have engaged in mass illegal surveillance of Americans without warrants or probable cause.”
Her firm stance earned her praise from both libertarians and progressives. Speaking at CPAC years later, she doubled down on her criticism, accusing politicians of siding with “the power elite” instead of defending liberty.
Now, Gabbard’s new position has taken many by surprise. In a recent interview with CNN, she described Section 702 as a “critical tool” for gathering foreign intelligence, particularly on non-U.S. persons abroad. While acknowledging the potential for abuse, Gabbard expressed confidence that reforms enacted since her time in Congress sufficiently address concerns about Americans’ civil liberties.
“If confirmed as DNI,” she stated, “I will uphold Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights while ensuring that essential national security tools like Section 702 remain effective in protecting the safety and freedom of the American people.”
This shift has garnered support from Republican senators, including James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). Lankford described her change of heart as “an important step” for her confirmation, emphasizing that Gabbard now understands the balance between civil rights and national security.
“She voted against [Section 702] in the House,” Lankford said during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press. “But she now recognizes the safeguards in place to protect Americans’ privacy.”
Despite this backing, Gabbard’s reversal has drawn harsh criticism. Civil libertarians and privacy advocates argue that the so-called reforms she cited are insufficient. A 2023 report revealed that the FBI conducted 278,000 warrantless searches of Americans’ communications between 2020 and 2021, targeting groups as varied as Jan. 6 protesters and Black Lives Matter activists.
Even former President Trump, who nominated Gabbard, has voiced opposition to Section 702. In 2024, Trump called for its abolition, claiming it was “illegally used against me and many others.” He urged Republicans to “KILL FISA” and fight for stricter privacy protections.
Nonetheless, Gabbard’s new position aligns with a growing bipartisan consensus in Congress. In April 2024, Republicans joined forces with Democrats to reauthorize Section 702, defeating amendments aimed at increasing oversight and strengthening civil liberties.
For Gabbard, this shift may ease her path to confirmation as DNI, but it has alienated many of her former supporters. Libertarians and progressives who once applauded her defense of privacy rights now view her transformation as a betrayal. Critics accuse her of abandoning her principles to secure a high-profile government position.
The broader debate over Section 702 underscores the enduring tension between national security and individual privacy. Proponents argue the surveillance program is indispensable for combating foreign threats, while opponents warn of its potential to erode constitutional rights.
As Gabbard navigates the contentious confirmation process, her evolution on this issue raises questions about political pragmatism and personal conviction. Whether her change in stance reflects a genuine reassessment or a calculated political move, one thing is clear: Gabbard’s reversal on Section 702 has reshaped the discussion on surveillance and will remain a focal point of debate for years to come.
Showing true colors already. One Rino down who’s next step up and take your beating now