Tulsi Gabbard Shuts Down Mark Kelly: Senate Hearing Turns Into Explosive Clash Over Syria, Intelligence, and U.S. Policy

Washington, D.C. — In a Senate hearing that was expected to be routine, the temperature in the chamber spiked as Senator Mark Kelly’s pointed questions to Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, backfired spectacularly. Intended to cast doubt on Gabbard’s credibility and patriotism, Kelly’s interrogation instead set the stage for one of the most memorable public reckonings over U.S. foreign policy, the intelligence community, and the consequences of regime change wars.

.

.

.

Kelly’s Opening Gambit: A Question Meant to Corner Gabbard

The hearing began with Kelly attempting to press Gabbard on her skepticism toward the intelligence community’s conclusions regarding chemical attacks in Syria—specifically the incidents at Duma and Khan Sheikhoun. “Can you explain to me then why you doubted the intelligence community’s conclusions in these two cases?” Kelly asked, his tone sharp and expectant, as if he had caught Gabbard in a contradiction.

But Gabbard was ready. Her response was measured, factual, and unflinching. She explained, “These two cases were being looked at as a pretext for major military movement. My fear was a repeat of the deployment of another half a million soldiers like we saw in Iraq, toward what was the Obama administration’s goal—regime change in Syria.”

She continued, “The assessment was made with high confidence and low information. The information came from al-Qaeda-linked sources on the ground, and there was conflicting information from the UN’s chemical weapons inspectors. This whole situation is complicated, but the Assad regime absolutely carried out chemical attacks on civilians. That isn’t up for debate. But there was one incident where internal emails from the UN’s watchdog, leaked by Wikileaks, showed staff arguing over whether one attack was staged.”

The Politics of Accusation: Gabbard Faces the Russian Smear

Kelly, undeterred, pivoted to a familiar Democratic playbook—one that has haunted Gabbard since the 2016 presidential campaign. He referenced her past statements criticizing U.S. support for Syrian rebel groups, some of which were affiliated with al-Qaeda, and her criticism of President Trump for “supporting al-Qaeda.”

“In 2016, you gave an interview in which you said, ‘The U.S. is providing direct and indirect support to terrorist groups in order to overthrow the Syrian government.’ And in 2019, you said, ‘This president is supporting al-Qaeda.’ What was your goal in saying these things?” Kelly prodded.

It was a move designed to paint Gabbard as echoing Russian and Syrian propaganda, a narrative that Hillary Clinton herself had tried to cement during the 2019 Democratic primaries. But Gabbard refused to be boxed in.

Gabbard’s Explosive Rebuttal: The Reality of U.S. Policy in Syria

Gabbard’s answer was a masterclass in clarity and conviction. “Senator, as someone who enlisted in the military because of al-Qaeda’s terrorist attack on 9/11, I committed my life to defeating these terrorists. It was a betrayal to me and every person killed on 9/11, their families, and my brothers and sisters in uniform when, as a member of Congress, I learned about President Obama’s dual programs to overthrow the regime in Syria—working with and arming al-Qaeda in an effort to overthrow that regime.”

She detailed the CIA’s Timber Sycamore program, which funneled billions in arms and equipment to so-called “moderate rebels,” many of whom were in fact aligned with al-Qaeda. “The DoD train-and-equip program resulted in over half a billion dollars being used to train fighters working with and aligned with al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria,” Gabbard explained.

She was not exaggerating. The Timber Sycamore program, launched around 2012, transferred an estimated $1 billion in arms, ammunition, and training to Syrian rebel groups. Much of it ended up with ISIS and other extremist factions, fueling the chaos that destabilized the region and triggered a massive refugee wave into Europe.

The Cost of Regime Change: Gabbard’s Warning

Gabbard drew a direct line between past regime change wars—in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt—and the rise of Islamist extremists. “A regime change war in Syria, much like the regime change wars in Iraq, the toppling of Gaddafi and Mubarak, would likely result in the rise of Islamist extremists like al-Qaeda taking power. I shed no tears for the fall of the Assad regime. But today we have an Islamist extremist in charge of Syria, who danced on the streets to celebrate the 9/11 attack, who ruled over Idlib with extremist governance, and who has begun to persecute and kill religious minorities like Christians.”

Her words landed hard. The Senate chamber, usually a place of politeness and platitudes, was suddenly alive with uncomfortable truths.

Kelly’s Talking Points Collapse

Despite Gabbard’s detailed, passionate response, Kelly clung to his script. “My concern has to do with the tendency to repeat Russian and Syrian information and to discount what comes from our intelligence community,” he said, as if Gabbard hadn’t just explained, in detail, the sources and reasoning behind her skepticism.

Observers noted that Kelly seemed less interested in Gabbard’s actual answers and more focused on landing political punches. His questions, meant to expose Gabbard, instead exposed the shallow nature of Washington’s debate over foreign policy—a debate where repeating talking points often takes precedence over reckoning with hard facts.

The Bigger Picture: What Gabbard’s Stand Means for America

Gabbard’s confrontation with Kelly was more than a personal victory. It was a moment that forced the Senate—and the public watching at home—to confront the uncomfortable reality of America’s foreign policy in the Middle East. The U.S. has a long history of supporting proxy forces, some of which have turned into the very enemies American soldiers were sent to fight.

The CIA’s Timber Sycamore program, once classified, is now widely acknowledged as a disaster. Billions in weapons and training ended up in the hands of extremists. The program was shut down in 2017, but not before it contributed to one of the worst humanitarian crises of the century.

Gabbard’s willingness to call out these failures—at personal and political risk—stood in stark contrast to Kelly’s evasive, partisan questioning.

The Fallout: Senate, Media, and Public Reaction

As the hearing wrapped up, the atmosphere in the chamber was electric. Reporters scrambled to capture the moment. Social media lit up with clips of Gabbard’s takedown. Headlines blared: “Tulsi Gabbard Shuts Down Mark Kelly in Explosive Senate Showdown.”

Outside the chamber, opinions were divided. Some praised Gabbard for her courage and honesty, while others accused her of undermining the intelligence community. But one thing was clear: the usual Washington script had been torn up, replaced by a raw and necessary debate about war, peace, and the cost of intervention.

Why This Matters: Lessons for U.S. Policy and Leadership

Gabbard’s performance was a reminder that truth is not partisan. While Washington often rewards those who toe the party line, real leadership means challenging consensus when it’s built on shaky ground. The consequences of failed regime change wars are not theoretical—they are measured in lives lost, communities destroyed, and national security compromised.

As Gabbard said, “Transparency and accountability are not optional. Every dollar spent, every weapon shipped, every alliance formed must be scrutinized—not just for its strategic value, but for its moral cost.”

The Final Word: A New Standard for Senate Hearings?

In the end, Kelly’s attempt to corner Gabbard backfired, leaving him speechless and exposed. Gabbard’s refusal to back down, her command of the facts, and her moral clarity set a new standard for what Americans should expect from their leaders.

As the hearing adjourned, the message was clear: the era of easy answers and partisan smears is over. The American people deserve—and demand—leaders who will face the truth, no matter how uncomfortable.

What’s Next?

The fallout from this hearing will likely ripple through Washington for weeks to come. Questions about the intelligence community’s credibility, the legacy of U.S. intervention in Syria, and the true cost of regime change wars are now front and center.

For Tulsi Gabbard, the moment was vindication—a chance to show that courage and integrity still matter in American politics. For Mark Kelly, it was a lesson in the dangers of underestimating a soldier who knows the cost of war.

Stay tuned. The debate over America’s role in the world is far from over—and the voices demanding accountability are only getting louder.