The Hoax

Tulsi Gabbard Is A Russian Agent

After President-elect Donald Trump nominated Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence on November 13, 2024, accusations of her being a Russian agent dominated headlines. Politicians, analysts, and media outlets claimed Gabbard’s actions and statements aligned with Russian interests, framing her as a potential threat to U.S. national security.

These accusations rest on three key claims:

Tulsi Echoed Russian Propaganda About Bioweapons

On March 13, 2022, Gabbard made public remarks about U.S.-funded biological research labs in Ukraine, which critics claimed echoed Russian propaganda that the labs were being used to develop bioweapons. These statements were widely interpreted as aligning with Kremlin narratives, raising questions about her motives.

Tulsi Justified Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

Gabbard argued that Russia’s opposition to Ukraine joining NATO was a legitimate security concern, which critics claimed effectively justified Russia’s actions and echoed Moscow’s position on the conflict.

AP— Gabbard says American assistance for Ukraine jeopardizes global security by antagonizing Russia. She has criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as corrupt and has expressed sympathy for Russia’s position, given Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, the Western military alliance.

“This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns,” she posted on Twitter at the start of Russia’s invasion in 2022.

Tulsi Supported a War Criminal and Russian Ally

Gabbard’s 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a close ally of Russia, was criticized as lending legitimacy to a leader accused of war crimes. Her willingness to engage with Assad fueled accusations of aligning with adversarial regimes, furthering claims of her pro-Russian tendencies.

Summary

These points were amplified by high-profile critics who argued Gabbard’s nomination represented a “major win” for Vladimir Putin. Media outlets and political opponents further bolstered the narrative by citing selective interpretations of her record and echoing praise for Gabbard from Russian state media.

---

The Debunks

Tulsi Expressed Concerns About The Risks Of Pathogens Being Released From Ukraine’s Biolabs In A Warzone

The claim that Tulsi Gabbard echoed Russian propaganda about bioweapons stems from a misinterpretation of her initial comments. In her March 13 video, Gabbard expressed concern over the existence of biolabs in Ukraine, emphasizing the risks posed by these facilities in an active warzone. She did not endorse Russia’s false propaganda claim that these labs were producing biological weapons. After facing criticism, Gabbard clarified in subsequent tweets that she did not believe the labs were involved in bioweapons production. Instead, she focused on the potential dangers of pathogen release due to the ongoing conflict, a concern shared by the World Health Organization, which had advised Ukraine to destroy high-threat pathogens to prevent outbreaks.

𝕏— I’m not convinced there are biological weapons labs or biological weapons in Ukraine—that’s not what I’m concerned about. I’m concerned about the existence of the 25+ biological labs in that warzone.

As i said 2 days ago: “Biolabs”, “bioweapons labs”, and “bioweapons” are 3 very different things. But because these phrases are so similar, there is sometimes miscommunication and misunderstanding when discussing them. I recently experienced this myself. So let me clarify…

“Biolabs” are facilities which contain and experiment with dangerous pathogens, ostensibly for the purpose of serving the public good (i.e. vaccines, etc.). “Biological weapons labs” are facilities which exist for the purpose of turning pathogens into weapons so they can be used against an enemy (i.e. “bioweapons”). The danger of pathogens being released from biolabs in Ukraine is very real, and we need to take action immediately to prevent an impending catastrophe.

While critics quickly labeled her remarks as echoing Russian disinformation, Gabbard’s position was grounded in biosecurity risks, not in promoting Kremlin narratives. The U.S. Department of Defense confirmed that the labs in question were involved in public health research, not weaponization. Her clarification refuted any alignment with Russian propaganda and highlighted the importance of addressing legitimate concerns about lab safety in a warzone.

Critiquing U.S. Policy and NATO’s Actions Is Not Justifying Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

While Gabbard did express concerns about the growing tensions between NATO and Russia, and acknowledged Russia’s security fears regarding NATO’s expansion, she was not endorsing Russia’s invasion. Instead, she was advocating for a diplomatic approach that would address the underlying security issues and avoid war. Gabbard’s comments were focused on the need to understand Russia’s perspective, but this does not equate to supporting an invasion or endorsing aggression. Her argument for peace and diplomacy has been consistent, emphasizing dialogue as the path to resolving conflicts rather than military intervention.

Tulsi’s Meeting with Assad Was Motivated by Efforts To End The Syrian Conflict, Not Endorse A War Criminal

Tulsi Gabbard’s 2017 meeting with Bashar al-Assad was part of her long-standing belief in diplomatic engagement as a means to resolve conflicts, not an endorsement of Assad’s actions or alignment with Russia; she clarified that she only agreed to meet him to explore avenues for ending the war and alleviating the suffering of the Syrian people, a position she has consistently maintained despite political criticism.

If Tulsi Gabbard believed that meeting with Bashar al-Assad could help end the Syrian conflict and chose not to do so, what would that say about her? She acted based on her belief that dialogue could bring an end to the suffering of Syrians. Gabbard’s decision to meet with Assad was rooted in her conviction that U.S. involvement in regime change efforts was counterproductive and that diplomacy, not military intervention, was the path to peace. Despite facing harsh criticism, her actions reflect a steadfast commitment to prioritizing peace and ending the war, regardless of political pressure.

AP–Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii said she originally had no intention of sitting down with Assad, according to a statement issued by her office detailing her travels. But she changed her mind when the opportunity arose.

“I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there’s a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering,” Gabbard said.

It’s simple logic: if Tulsi Gabbard were truly a Russian asset or agent, she wouldn’t still be serving as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. Given her position and ongoing responsibility as a commander in the Army Reserve, the military would never allow someone compromised by a foreign power to maintain such a role. Her continued service directly contradicts the accusations that she is working against her country’s interests.

---

Hoaxology

In understanding how hoaxes like the ones surrounding Tulsi Gabbard are created, it’s important to recognize the techniques used to manipulate perceptions. Hoaxology explores these tactics, such as Guilty by Association, where individuals are linked to controversial figures to damage their credibility. By examining the strategies behind the spread of misinformation, we can better dissect the narratives pushed against Tulsi and uncover the truth.

Guilty by Association

The media and critics have attempted to link Tulsi to Russia, accusing her of being a “Russian asset” simply because of her criticisms of U.S. foreign policy and her desire to de-escalate tensions with Russia. By associating her with Russia in this way, they aim to damage her credibility and paint her as disloyal or compromised, despite no evidence supporting such claims.

Branding

Tulsi is branded as a “Russian agent” or “asset” based on her foreign policy stances. This label is used to quickly categorize her in a negative light without addressing the substance of her positions. This tactic simplifies complex issues and attaches a stigma to her, influencing how the public perceives her without real, objective analysis.

Selective Reporting

The narrative around Tulsi often relies on selective reporting, where critics cherry-pick her statements or actions to fit a specific narrative. They ignore the full context of her remarks and the rationale behind her decisions. For instance, when she speaks about the need for diplomacy with Russia, her broader concern about the U.S. military-industrial complex and regime change wars is omitted, which would provide a fuller, more nuanced understanding of her perspective.

These techniques work together to mislead the public, shaping Tulsi as a “Russian sympathizer” without presenting her views or actions in their entirety.

---

𝕏 @americandebunk