Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard testifies before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., March 18, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Tulsi Gabbard made what seems to be an "irreconcilable" about-face on her past anti-war positions to back the war in Iran, and according to a new analysis from The Atlantic, it revealed an alarming truth about President Donald Trump, and presidents as a whole.
Before the current conflict, Gabbard had established herself as a consistently anti-war voice, even in response to Trump. During his first term, she co-sponsored the No More Presidential Wars Act in 2018, a bill that stated presidents must “seek congressional authorization prior to any engagement of the U.S. Armed Forces against Syria, Iran, or Russia.” When Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in 2020, she was unsparing, stating that he had "committed an illegal and unconstitutional act."
Now, however, she is a prominent member of Trump's second-term Cabinet, serving as the director of national intelligence. In this capacity, she recently made a jolting reversal of her past opposition to war, speaking out in support of Trump's decision to join Israel in striking Iran.
"Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people,” she wrote in a post to X. “As our Commander in Chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat, and whether or not to take action he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people and our country."
As Atlantic staff writer Conor Friedersdorf noted in his piece from Thursday, Gabbard, along with Vice President JD Vance, was seen as proof by some MAGA followers that Trump was serious about his campaign promise to avoid costly wars. In the wake of her abrupt about-face, however, she has revealed the alarming truth that Trump, and presidents in general, cannot be trusted to stick to their anti-war campaign rhetoric.
"The larger lesson, for those who oppose unilateral and unlawful wars, is that neither a president’s anti-war rhetoric nor his appointments of foreign-intervention skeptics are valuable indicators of how he will act," he argued. "Members of the executive branch cannot be trusted to leave the war power in the hands of Congress, as the Constitution and the rule of law demands. When people serve at the pleasure of the president, the incentives to empower him are simply too strong."
Friedersdorf noted that the same notion applied to former President Barack Obama, who campaigned heavily in 2008 on anti-war ideals, but later "waged new wars unilaterally while asserting extraordinary powers for the executive branch" while in office. In light of this trend, he urged voters to back anti-war congressional candidates who can be trusted to impeach presidents who exert unilateral war powers.
"Presently, the majority of Congress is focused on pleasing the president," Friedersdorf concluded. "But the only way to stop presidents from unilaterally starting new wars is to elect a Congress that threatens to oust them if they do — and means it."