Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. Foreign Policy Contradictions, and MSNBC’s Attack on Trump’s National Security Nominee

By Scotty Reid

The recent attacks by MSNBC on Tulsi Gabbard, alleging “secret” meetings with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, appear to be part of a coordinated effort to discredit both Gabbard and her nomination to a national security position under Donald Trump’s incoming administration. These criticisms expose not just media bias but also the glaring contradictions in U.S. foreign policy, where allies and enemies are defined more by expedience than principle.

The Context of MSNBC’s Criticism

The timing of these allegations is significant. Tulsi Gabbard, once a Democrat and a rising star in the party, fell out of favor after resigning as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016 to endorse Bernie Sanders. Her departure was tied to accusations of corruption in the Democratic primary process, which many, including Gabbard, alleged was rigged to favor Hillary Clinton (The Guardian).

Gabbard later left the Democratic Party entirely, accusing it of being controlled by corporate elites and abandoning progressive values (The Hill). Her nomination to a position in Trump’s administration reignited Democratic ire, with MSNBC leading the charge to discredit her by rehashing controversies surrounding her foreign policy views.

Tulsi Gabbard’s 2017 Syria Trip

At the center of MSNBC’s allegations is Gabbard’s 2017 visit to Syria. While serving as a U.S. Congresswoman, Gabbard traveled to the war-torn nation on a self-described fact-finding mission. During her trip, she met with President Bashar al-Assad, a figure accused of war crimes. Gabbard defended her actions, arguing that dialogue—even with adversarial leaders—was essential to achieving peace (The Washington Post).

Critics accused her of legitimizing Assad, but Gabbard maintained that U.S. efforts to overthrow his regime only prolonged the suffering of the Syrian people. Her stance on Syria diverged sharply from the bipartisan consensus in Washington, which often equates diplomacy with appeasement.

Double Standards in U.S. Foreign Policy

The outrage over Gabbard’s meeting with Assad highlights a double standard. U.S. officials have a long history of engaging with controversial leaders, often with little or no backlash:

• John McCain met with Syrian opposition groups in 2013, some of whom were later linked to extremist factions like al-Nusra Front (Business Insider).
• Joe Biden, as vice president, regularly met with leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan who were implicated in human rights abuses (Al Jazeera).
• Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, played a key role in the NATO-led intervention in Libya that culminated in the violent overthrow and death of Muammar Gaddafi, the U.N.- and U.S.-recognized leader of Libya (BBC News).

Clinton’s infamous quip, “We came, we saw, he died,” captured her cavalier attitude toward the aftermath of Gaddafi’s death (The Atlantic).

Biden’s Praise for Terrorist-Linked Groups

Adding to the contradictions, the Biden administration has openly praised Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a group listed by the U.S. as a terrorist organization due to its ties to al-Qaeda (U.S. State Department). HTS has been one of the most effective groups fighting against Assad in Syria, and despite its designation, Biden has pledged billions of dollars in support to opposition forces aligned with the group (Foreign Policy).

This raises troubling questions: If Gabbard is criticized for engaging with Assad, why is Biden praised for supporting groups with clear links to extremism? Such contradictions reveal a foreign policy driven by expedience rather than principle.

Neoconservatives, Neoliberals, and Media Bias

The bipartisan consensus on interventionism, supported by neoconservatives and neoliberals alike, drives much of the criticism against Gabbard. Neoconservatives, associated with the Republican Party, champion aggressive military actions to promote U.S. dominance. Neoliberals, tied to the Democratic Party, pursue similar goals under the guise of humanitarianism. Both factions prioritize U.S. interests over stability, often supporting coups, regime changes, and militant groups when it serves their agenda.

The mainstream media, including MSNBC, amplifies this narrative. By attacking Gabbard, the media aligns itself with the neoliberal establishment, which views her as a threat to its interventionist policies.

The Timing of MSNBC’s Attack

The timing of MSNBC’s criticism is significant. It coincides with Gabbard’s nomination to a national security position under Trump. By rehashing controversies surrounding her Syria trip, MSNBC aims to undermine her credibility and, by extension, Trump’s administration. This tactic reflects a broader strategy of discrediting Trump’s appointments as a means of weakening his presidency.

The Broader Implications

The attacks on Gabbard are emblematic of the contradictions in U.S. foreign policy and media narratives. While she is vilified for seeking dialogue and peace, U.S. officials routinely engage with controversial leaders and support groups with ties to terrorism when it serves their strategic interests. The selective outrage directed at Gabbard exposes the hypocrisy of a system that prioritizes power and profit over accountability and justice.

Conclusion

MSNBC’s framing of Tulsi Gabbard’s actions as “secret” and controversial is part of a broader effort to discredit her nomination and Trump’s administration. This narrative, driven by the neoliberal establishment, highlights the contradictions and hypocrisies in U.S. foreign policy.

To move toward a more accountable foreign policy, it is essential to challenge these inconsistencies and hold all actors—whether political leaders, media organizations, or policymakers—to the same standard. Only by addressing these contradictions can the cycle of selective outrage and interventionist violence be broken.