Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Tulsi Gabbard Face Intense Scrutiny in Senate Hearings

Ryan Denison

When President Trump first announced his list of cabinet nominations, his selection of former representative Matt Gaetz to serve as Attorney General garnered most of the attention. By the time he dropped out and Pam Bondi took his place, much of the initial concern regarding three of the president’s other nominations had fallen to the background. However, that changed earlier this week as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Tulsi Gabbard all went before their respective Senate approval committees in what proved to be a contentious affair for each.

Kennedy endured two days of questions, as the position for which he was nominated required meeting with both the Senate Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Neither proved overwhelmingly receptive, with his past comments on abortion and vaccines dominating much of the conversation. While he still has a path to confirmation, that outcome appears far from certain.

The same could be said for Kash Patel, Trump’s choice to lead the FBI. Going into his hearing, Patel had the reputation of a hard and fast supporter of the president whom many believed—and not without cause—would be willing to use his office to go after those who had opposed the president in the past. But while that outcome is still possible should Patel be confirmed, his time before the committee argued against that notion.

Patel was more than willing to match the confrontational tone of the senators who opposed his nomination, but he also argued that many of the comments that had stoked fears were taken out of context or misunderstood. Listening to him offer those arguments, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. Important context was missing from what the senators quoted, but that context would not completely absolve Patel of the accusations levied against him.

Still, Patel appears to have enough support among Republicans on the committee that his nomination will likely go forward without issue. However, the same cannot be said for the third of Trump’s controversial selections to appear before the Senate on Thursday: Tulsi Gabbard.

What Is FISA 702?

As former Democrats turned Trump supporters, Kennedy and Gabbard were always going to have the greatest difficulty among the president’s nominees in finding acceptance from Senate Republicans. However, Gabbard’s hearing for her nomination to be Director of National Intelligence was particularly interesting in that what many thought would be the most contentious issue—her past stance on FISA Section 702—proved to be something of an afterthought.

As it currently stands, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows federal authorities to collect information and conversations without a warrant. But while the Act is ostensibly focused on foreign nationals, the basic framework often ends up capturing the private thoughts of American citizens as well. During her time in Congress, Gabbard repeatedly spoke out against the Act and even attempted to repeal it at one point.

Given that Section 702 provides much of the information with which the intelligence community makes its decisions, Gabbard’s past opposition to the Act put her at odds with those she would be charged with leading should she be confirmed as director of national intelligence. Yet, during the hearing, Gabbard repeatedly claimed that recent changes to the law have put many of those concerns to rest in her mind.

Ironically, it was the man who first revealed much of that government overreach—Edward Snowden—who may prove to be a far greater stumbling block to Gabbard’s confirmation.

Is Edward Snowden a Traitor?

When pressed by both Republican and Democratic Senators to denounce Snowden as a traitor, Gabbard refused. Instead, she stated that he had “broken the law” and promised to advocate for steps to ensure that “we can prevent something like this from happening again.”

That response proved insufficient for the Senators who repeatedly pressed her to call Snowden a traitor. Such insistence seems like a strange stance to take, considering Snowden has never been charged with treason. Moreover, constitutionally, treason is only possible when a person aids a country with whom Congress has declared war, which hasn’t happened since June 5, 1942.

Ultimately, Gabbard was right not to call Snowden a traitor, though it seems clear that the committee had a more nebulous understanding of treason in mind. Her choice not to do so, however, may cost her the confirmation.

Whether Gabbard’s decision not to denounce Snowden demonstrates courage and conviction or shortsighted obstinance is for each person to decide. And perhaps both can be true to some extent. Either way, though, her choice speaks to a principle that we would all do well to consider today.

Conviction or Compromise?

Some of the most influential people in the history of the church have been those willing to stand up for what they believe to be true, regardless of how many people disagreed with them. From the apostle Paul to Martin Luther and a host of others, God has used that willingness to stand on an island to advance his kingdom in remarkable ways.

Of course, what God intends for good, Satan will always try to use for evil.

Many of those same people ended up driving others away or creating unnecessary conflict when they refused to prioritize common ground over relatively minor differences. In such moments, the key to knowing when to compromise and when to stand firm is letting God make that decision for you.

To be sure, there are certain truths to which the Lord has already said we must hold fast. Standing up for these core elements of the gospel with conviction will always be the right thing to do. But even then, the manner in which we share that truth will go a long way toward determining what the Lord can do through us.

For example, Satan is generally fine with us telling the truth so long as we don’t do it in love (Ephesians 4:15). Likewise, he’d surely prefer that we don’t share the gospel, but if our message is delivered with arrogance and derision rather than humility and grace then we are still likely to build barriers between the Lord and those he’s called us to reach.

While you and I are unlikely to ever stand before a congressional committee, God will make sure that all of us are given chances to stand for the gospel. So when your opportunity comes, will you be ready? Today is a great time to make sure your answer is yes.

Quote of the Day:

“The virtue of courage is a prerequisite for the practice of all other virtues, otherwise one is virtuous only when virtue has no cost.” —C.S. Lewis

Ryan Denison, PhD, is the Senior Editor for Theology at Denison Forum. Ryan writes The Daily Article every Friday and contributes writing and research to many of the ministry’s productions. He holds a PhD in church history from BH Carroll Theological Institute after having earned his MDiv at Truett Seminary. He’s authored The Path to Purpose, What Are My Spiritual Gifts?, How to Bless God by Blessing Others, 7 Deadly Sins, and has contributed writing or research to every Denison Forum book.

The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of CrosswalkHeadlines.

For more from the Denison Forum, please visit www.denisonforum.org.