Three of President Donald Trump’s most controversial nominees will testify before the Senate on Thursday in what could be a make-or-break moment for the trio of administration picks.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., tapped to be Trump’s health and human services secretary, will appear for his second day of testimony, while Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel, nominated for intelligence chief and FBI director, respectively, will face senators for the first time in a committee setting.
Each has made controversial statements that could imperil their nomination with the handful of centrist Republicans who will decide their fate.
Trump’s nominees can afford to lose three Republican votes in the Senate, and transition aides continue to see the same GOP senators, among them Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), as obstacles.
Last week, Pete Hegseth was confirmed as defense secretary by the skin of his teeth, with Vice President JD Vance casting a tiebreaking vote.
Tulsi Gabbard
Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman and military combat veteran, will field questions in an open session on Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee before appearing in front of senators in a closed session to discuss classified materials.
While no Republican has come out against Gabbard’s nomination, there are multiple expressing concern privately about her meeting with now-ousted Syrian President Bashar Assad in 2017, her comments repeating Russian talking points, and her skepticism over findings from the very intelligence community she is seeking to lead.
Her shifting positions on a crucial government surveillance program and past support for Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor charged with leaking damaging classified information, have also been points of contention.
Collins said she needs further clarity on Gabbard’s view of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which she sees as crucial for gathering foreign intelligence.
“I think the hearings will be helpful in defining exactly what her position is, versus how she voted versus her answers to the questions for the record,” Collins told the Washington Examiner on Monday evening.
Gabbard will also face related questions from the other side of the aisle. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), a major privacy hawk, has been a proponent of reforming the surveillance act.
“I want her to sort out her — the variety of positions she’s had on FISA, and this is particularly important because as you know, over my opposition, the last FISA bill made an exception for data centers, and I’m concerned that exception is so big,” Wyden said.
Last week, several sources expressed skepticism that Gabbard’s nomination could advance out of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The committee is split 9-8 in favor of Republicans — meaning if all panel Democrats oppose Gabbard, as is expected, a single GOP flip could prevent her nomination from reaching the floor.
There have been discussions about finding alternative ways to bring Gabbard’s nomination to the floor if she’s unable to advance out of the committee, but Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) appeared to pour cold water on that option.
“I don’t think you can do that if she’s not voted out of committee because the committee would have to vote to bring her to the floor without recommendation,” Thune said, speaking to reporters. “And I can’t see them doing that if they vote her down.”
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said Gabbard is facing “three different audiences” during her confirmation hearing.
“No. 1 will be the members of the Senate, the second one will be the American public, and third will be the president, knowing she has done her homework,” Rounds explained. “All three have to be satisfied, and we’ll give her the opportunity to show that she has a good knowledge of the job expectations, and we’ll give her an opportunity to basically share how she views the approach that she should take in that position and what her role should be.”
Kash Patel
Patel, a MAGA loyalist, is expected to be pressed on his firebrand persona, including past statements on the FBI and his compilation of what critics call an “enemies list” of Trump opponents.
Prior to his nomination, Patel mused about shutting down the FBI headquarters so its agents could be relocated and overstated his role in the Justice Department’s investigation of the Benghazi attack in Libya, as reported in the New York Times. He may also face questions over two brushes with the law.
Senate Democrats tested their messaging earlier this month during the confirmation hearing for his prospective boss, attorney general nominee Pam Bondi. Senate Democrats focused their questioning on Patel early and consistently throughout the nearly six-hour-long hearing.
“There’s a lot of serious questions. I mean, he’s even engaging in quackery, selling dietary supplements that are supposed to relieve you of symptoms to COVID-19,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT), another Judiciary Committee member, suggested that the majority of questions they have will be addressing his past comments.
“The questions about him are all on the record. So, it’s actually a lot about him acknowledging the things he said before. They change their tune when they’re up for consideration,” Welch said.
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO), a Republican on the panel, indicated that the hearing is likely to be tense, suggesting he has been advising Patel through the process:
“Democrats are going to want to bloody him up. He’s extremely well qualified. I think he’ll perform well. I do think he’s got a great personal story.”
“I’ve known Kash for a while. We have had a lot of good discussions. I’ve shared with him — we’ve been in communication. I’ve shared my insights on what might happen. But I think it’s going to be a real humdinger,” he said.
So far, a majority of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have either endorsed Patel or signaled they are inclined to support his nomination.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Kennedy will sit for his second day of questioning on Thursday after testifying Wednesday before the Senate Finance Committee, the panel that will vote on his nomination.
During his first hearing, Kennedy rejected the “anti-vaccine” label assigned to him by critics and pledged to usher in “radical transparency” at HHS but botched questions on Medicaid and Medicare and skirted around answering questions about financial conflicts of interest.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said he planned to adapt his questioning based on the Wednesday hearing, telling reporters that probing Kennedy’s command of issues regarding Medicaid and Medicare will be critical.
“The protection of those programs is essential for ordinary families in our country, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act,” Markey said.
“So that’s at the heart of what, you know, I’m going to be concerned about because while there’s been a lot of focus on vaccines, to a certain extent, that’s a distraction because the science is actually just science. It’s these other problems that provide the protections for ordinary families across our country. So I’m very concerned, and there’s not enough discussion that has taken place about those problems,” he added.
Wyden, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, said Kennedy was “unprepared.”
“I and others I respect in healthcare got the impression that he got the various programs confused,” Wyden said.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), a swing vote on Trump’s Cabinet nominees, is a “lean yes” on Kennedy’s nomination and had the opposite impression.
“I thought he was well prepared. He took a lot of heat in the committee,” Tillis told the Washington Examiner after a more than three-hour-long hearing. “He’s probably never been treated that way before. So, in terms of his constitution, I thought it was pretty solid.”
