Bernie Turns His Back on Tulsi

Bernie Sanders shuffled across the Senate floor, rubbed his nose, and turned his thumb downward. The 83-year-old firebrand was a “no” vote on confirming Tulsi Gabbard as the next U.S. Director of National Intelligence. 

Just a few years ago, Sanders had hailed Gabbard, then a Democratic congresswoman, as “one of the important voices of a new generation of leaders.” But when the moment came for Sanders to stand by his principles, the Vermont senator—who has long cultivated an image as a fierce independent within the political establishment—retreated to the safety of partisan conformity. 

Sanders’s vote against Gabbard’s confirmation revealed the aging progressive as the very type of meek party man he has spent decades railing against. Once celebrated as a staunch advocate for the people, Sanders now appears tethered to the political machine he once sought to dismantle—a machine he has often blamed for perpetuating a corrupt and out-of-touch bureaucracy. 

In 2016, when Democratic Party leaders actively worked to undermine Sanders’s presidential campaign, it was Gabbard who stepped up. The former lieutenant colonel resigned her position as the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to endorse Sanders, a move that cost her dearly within the party’s elite circles. 

“As the vice chair of the DNC, I’m required to stay neutral in Democratic primaries,” Gabbard explained in a video announcing her resignation. The Hawaiian-born stateswoman praised Sanders’ antiwar stance as a defining feature of his candidacy. “He will not waste precious lives and money on interventionist wars or regime change,” she said. “Such counterproductive wars undermine our national security and economic prosperity.”

Gabbard could have easily preserved her standing among the Democratic elite by aligning with the Clinton campaign. Instead, she stood by her convictions, becoming the highest-ranking Democrat to endorse Sanders at a time when the party establishment was determined to derail his campaign. 

In Sanders, Gabbard saw a rare politician—one who stood apart from the bipartisan warmongers who had dominated American politics for decades. “As a veteran and as a soldier, I’ve seen firsthand the true cost of war,” Gabbard said in her endorsement of the septuagenarian. She believed Sanders would address the failures of the intelligence community, which she viewed as responsible for needless global bloodshed. 

Nearly a decade later, Gabbard’s reward for risking her career to support Sanders was a swift “no” from the man who once praised her. What has changed? Not Gabbard. She res the same antiwar, pro-transparency politician she was in 2016—a stance that earned her the trust of President Trump, who nominated her for a role historically dominated by hawks and intelligence insiders. 

If anyone has changed, it’s Sanders. In recent years, the senator has repeatedly endorsed arms shipments and funding packages to support Ukraine in its war with Russia. His lone veto of aid to Ukraine was not motivated by opposition to the conflict but by the aid’s connection to funding for the Netanyahu government. While many of his constituents struggle with skyrocketing rent and inflation, Sanders has chosen to champion the Zelensky administration and criticize Gabbard for her pragmatic approach to the region. 

The rift between Sanders and Gabbard largely stems from their differing views on the Russia–Ukraine conflict. Sanders and other Democrats have accused Gabbard of being soft on Russia and even of sympathizing with Vladimir Putin. They’ve criticized her 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, framing it as evidence of her alleged alignment with authoritarian regimes. While Gabbard sought to foster dialogue amid rising tensions between Russia and the West, Democrats doubled down on a confrontational foreign policy that many argue exacerbated the conflict in Ukraine. 

“This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if the Biden Administration and NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns,” Gabbard wrote on 𝕏 in 2022—a sentiment echoed by Trump. For Sanders and the Democrats, such a view challenges their belief in America’s role as the global police force. The presence of bio-labs, the G8 debacle, and NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe have all contributed to the current crisis. Yet, for stating these uncomfortable truths, Gabbard has been ostracized by Sanders and his allies, who made their distrust clear through their unanimous “no” votes on her confirmation. 

The role of Director of National Intelligence, created in the aftermath of 9/11, has historically been a bastion for neoconservatives and globalists. Gabbard’s nomination represented a potential shift—a fact underscored by the lone Republican “no” vote from Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Despite their differences on Russia, Sanders could have found common ground with Gabbard on issues like pardoning Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower who exposed the intelligence community’s abuses. Yet, when the moment came, Sanders lacked the courage Gabbard showed in 2016. 

In a twist of irony, shortly after Gabbard’s confirmation, Sanders announced a barnstorming tour of Iowa and Nebraska to combat what he calls “the oligarchy.” His new enemy, it seems, is the enemy within: figures such as Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have broken ranks with the left to forge alliances with the right on antiwar and pro-health policies. 

Sanders’s transformation from anti-establishment rebel to partisan loyalist underscores the complexities of political evolution. But for Gabbard, his betrayal serves as a stark reminder of the cost of principles in a system that often rewards conformity.