Tulsi Gabbard has made history by becoming the United States’ Director of National Intelligence (DNI), marking an achievement as the first Hindu to hold the position. Her confirmation by the Senate was secured with a 52–48 vote.
Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination as Director of National Intelligence has been confirmed, despite ongoing scrutiny of her ties to the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF), a religious group often described as an offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement. The organization, founded by Chris Butler, has long been the subject of controversy due to its strict hierarchy, cult-like devotion to Butler, and alleged intolerance toward LGBTQ individuals, women, and Muslims.
Gabbard’s Ties to the Science of Identity Foundation
Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, has long faced questions about her connection to SIF. She was raised in the group, and her father, Hawaii State Senator Mike Gabbard, has also been linked to it. During her youth, she reportedly regarded Butler as a spiritual mentor, though she later distanced herself from the organization, emphasizing her broader Hindu faith.
Critics have raised concerns about the extent of Butler’s influence on Gabbard’s political career. Some former SIF members allege that Butler actively shaped her rise in politics to expand his reach. Her 2020 presidential campaign also drew scrutiny, with some seeing it as a vehicle for the group to gain political prominence.
Political Backlash and Intelligence Concerns
Gabbard’s confirmation has sparked backlash across party lines. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton called her appointment “the worst cabinet-level pick in history,” citing her foreign policy stances and her past interactions with leaders like Vladimir Putin. National security officials have also voiced concerns about whether her ties to SIF could pose a risk to US intelligence operations.
A Contentious Path Forward
Despite the controversy, Gabbard has defended her qualifications, insisting that her religious background does not influence her policy decisions. However, her nomination process highlighted deep divisions in Washington, with senators questioning whether her ties to SIF could compromise national security.
As she assumes her role as Director of National Intelligence, scrutiny over her past affiliations is unlikely to fade, raising questions about how her tenure will unfold in one of the most sensitive positions in the US government.