Will Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. Survive Their Hearings? (with Jen Briney)

The wolves are out for two of the Trump administration’s most unconventional cabinet picks.

Can Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. survive their hearings this week?

Let’s start with Bobby.

Caroline Kennedy has publicly stated her opposition to RFK Jr.‘s appointment. Caroline is deeply embedded in the power structure of the modern Democratic Party—she has served multiple times as an ambassador and was one of the first major endorsers of Barack Obama back in 2008. So, make of that what you will. RFK Jr., the black sheep of the family, is now stepping into a Republican administration, a move that surely raises eyebrows.

Though, if we’re speculating, old Joe Kennedy probably wouldn’t have had much of a problem with it.

Then there’s Tulsi Gabbard. A recent New York Times article titled “A Vatican Meeting Added Scrutiny of Tulsi Gabbard’s Foreign Travels” befuddled me. If you remember Gabbard’s complaints about being placed on a TSA watch list, this article confirms it—but oddly enough, it doesn’t treat that as the headline. Instead, the focus is on why she was put on the list, with government sources leaking that it stemmed from her attendance at a Vatican conference organized by a man who was reportedly on a terror watch list.

The Times knows this man’s name but chose not to publish it because they couldn’t verify why he was on the list. Essentially, the government gave the reporters a briefing, naming this individual as the reason Gabbard was flagged, but when pressed on why he was on the list, they refused to elaborate. And yet, the Times still ran with the story.

The article tacks on another odd claim—an intelligence briefing reportedly revealed that two Hezbollah members once mentioned Gabbard in a conversation that was passed on to US intelligence. During Gabbard’s controversial trip to meet with Bashar al-Assad she also met with “the big guy,” according to the Hezbollah fighters.

My first thought? She met with Joe Biden? No, apparently, “the big guy” in this case was either a Hezbollah leader or a Lebanese government official with ties to Hezbollah, which, given the region, isn’t exactly uncommon.

But what’s the real takeaway here? The way this story is framed makes little sense. If the government comes to you with information about a public figure, I understand reporting on it. But why not fold it into a larger piece digging deeper into the actual process behind it? Why not talk to Gabbard directly? Why not investigate the TSA’s reasoning in more detail? Instead, this piece presents her as suspicious without providing substantial evidence.

And knowing now that the government proactively brought this information to the Times, it only raises more red flags. That’s a weak justification for placing a high-profile critic of the current administration on a TSA watch list. It’s probably a bad thing to do in general. It’s even worse that they felt the need to leak it to the media.

But, of course, the real motive is clear—they don’t want her confirmed. There’s no other reason for the government to hand this story to the Times unless they’re trying to sink her nomination.

Chapters