Written by David Whitaker.
Tulsi Gabbard made a key revision to her opening remarks at her confirmation hearing, removing a statement that accused intelligence officials of leaking information to push the Russia investigation against President Trump. Axios obtained both the original draft and the final version, showing that this wasn’t just a minor tweak—it was a significant edit.
Why This Matters
When public figures make big cuts to their speeches, it often signals an effort to change perceptions. In this case, Gabbard is already facing an uphill battle for confirmation. Pulling back on accusations against the intelligence community could be an attempt to soften her image and make the process smoother. Whether it works or not remains to be seen.
The Details of the Edit
Originally, Gabbard’s speech included direct claims about the intelligence community leaking information to support the Russia collusion narrative against Trump. The statement, which didn’t make the final cut, read:
“The IC leaked pieces of so-called intelligence to help build the Russia Collusion case against President Trump.”
She also removed another pointed line referencing the Durham report’s findings:
“The Durham report revealed there was never any evidence or intelligence that was used as the basis for the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane where they claimed over and over Trump was a Russian agent.”
Both statements would have made waves had they remained in her speech.
The Official Explanation
A spokesperson for Gabbard, Alexa Henning, told Axios that the committee asked for a draft of the remarks before Gabbard had finished writing them. Henning made it clear that the shared version wasn’t the final one approved by Gabbard herself.
“She had not yet put her seal of approval on the version shared. What she delivered was her approved version.”
This suggests that Gabbard may have personally decided to walk back some of her remarks before delivering them. Whether that was due to pressure or strategy remains unclear.
What Else Was Removed?
The revisions weren’t limited to just the Russia investigation. Another scrapped line accused two intelligence officials of leaking classified information to The New York Times to hurt her. She had originally written:
“Not only is leaking and publishing such information a serious crime, but the narrative they are pushing—amplified by the Propaganda Media—is utterly absurd.”
Additionally, Gabbard removed a line about intelligence failures leading to the Iraq War:
“The intelligence failures and manipulations to support President Bush’s desire to launch a regime change war in Iraq exacted a cost on the American people and our national security that is impossible to measure – we are still paying the price to this day.”
This line had the potential to stir controversy, particularly among those who still defend the decisions made in the early 2000s.
A Calculated Move?
Gabbard has built a reputation as someone who isn’t afraid to call out the intelligence community, mainstream media, and the political establishment. Her original remarks would have aligned with that image. However, the decision to tone down her message may indicate a strategic shift to appear more confirmable to the Senate.
If this was an attempt to appease political opponents, it raises questions about whether Gabbard’s more hard-hitting takes will survive the confirmation process—or if she’ll continue to pull her punches.
Our Take
Gabbard’s decision to cut these lines is concerning. It suggests that even someone known for speaking her mind feels the need to self-censor when facing the political machine. This isn’t just about her—it’s about the broader issue of whether nominees can speak freely without fear of backlash. If the intelligence community and media have the power to shape what public officials can and can’t say, that’s bad news for transparency and accountability.
