Tulsi Gabbard

The Liberty Score is a rating system assessing how closely an individual’s views align with core Libertarian principles. Scores are based on a 0-100 scale, with 100 representing a fully Libertarian position and 0 representing complete opposition to Libertarian values. The grading criteria include:

Personal Freedom (25 points): Support for individual rights in personal choices, including medical freedom, privacy, and bodily autonomy.
Economic Freedom (25 points): Advocacy for a free-market economy, low taxation, and minimal government interference in business.
Limited Government (25 points): Commitment to reducing the size and scope of government, limiting regulatory power, and upholding states’ rights.
Non-Intervention (25 points): Opposition to unnecessary foreign entanglements, support for a non-interventionist foreign policy, and minimal military presence abroad.

Each category will be scored, then averaged to form the individual’s overall Liberty Score, providing a clear snapshot of their alignment with Libertarian ideals. Grades are provided by AI

Director of National Intelligence

Status: Confirmed by Campaign

Liberty Score: 65

Warhawk Status: Non-Interventionist

Liberty Score Assessment:

Personal Freedom (15/25): Tulsi Gabbard has advocated for civil liberties and privacy rights, opposing mass surveillance programs. However, her support for certain security measures indicates a balanced approach between personal freedom and national security.
Economic Freedom (15/25): Gabbard has supported free-market principles but also endorses government intervention in areas like healthcare and environmental regulation, reflecting a mixed stance on economic freedom.
Limited Government (15/25): While she advocates for reducing government overreach in personal lives, her support for specific federal programs suggests a nuanced view on the size and role of government.
Non-Intervention (20/25): Gabbard is a strong proponent of non-interventionist foreign policies, opposing regime change wars and advocating for diplomatic solutions, aligning closely with Libertarian principles in this area.

Bio:

Tulsi Gabbard, former U.S. Representative from Hawaii’s 2nd congressional district, has been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to serve as the Director of National Intelligence. Gabbard served in Congress from 2013 to 2021, where she was a member of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, focusing on issues of national security. A major in the Hawaii Army National Guard, Gabbard deployed to Iraq and Kuwait, earning commendations for her service. Originally a Democrat, Gabbard left the party in 2022, citing ideological differences, and endorsed Trump in the 2024 election. Her nomination has garnered both support and criticism, reflecting her complex political journey and her emphasis on non-interventionist foreign policy.

Career Highlights:

U.S. Representative for Hawaii’s 2nd District (2013–2021): Served on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, advocating for national security, veterans’ issues, and a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Military Service: Major in the Hawaii Army National Guard, with deployments to Iraq and Kuwait, where she earned the Meritorious Service Medal.
2020 Presidential Candidate: Ran for the Democratic nomination, promoting civil liberties and a focus on ending “forever wars.”
Political Realignment: Left the Democratic Party in 2022, later endorsing Trump in 2024, reflecting her shift toward a more conservative stance on key issues.

About the Director of National Intelligence Role:

The Director of National Intelligence oversees the U.S. intelligence community, coordinating the work of 17 agencies to provide comprehensive intelligence analysis for national security decision-making. The DNI advises the President and National Security Council, ensuring that intelligence operations are conducted effectively and in compliance with the law. Gabbard’s background in military service and her congressional experience on national security committees may inform her approach to intelligence oversight, possibly reflecting her advocacy for cautious foreign engagement and a focus on civil liberties. Her appointment suggests a potential shift in intelligence priorities toward a non-interventionist approach aligned with the administration’s broader foreign policy goals.