In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
Posted Joshua Scheer
As a Democratic congresswoman in 2019, Tulsi Gabbard warned the United States to “stay out” of Venezuela and opposed interventionist policies that have typified U.S. foreign engagements. More recently—as late as last month—she publicly excoriated what she called “warmongers” pushing the country into conflict.
This you? pic.twitter.com/epvbW1v8YK
— Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) January 7, 2026
Yet when the Trump White House quietly planned and executed its bold military operation to seize Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, Gabbard—now Director of National Intelligence—was not in the room where it happened. According to multiple people familiar with the matter, the White House excluded her from months of planning for the Maduro ouster, concluding that her long-standing skepticism about military interventions made her an unreliable advocate for the mission. Within the West Wing, aides reportedly joked that the acronym of her title, DNI, stood for “Do Not Invite.”
Despite those reports, Vice President JD Vance took the lectern to insist the notion that he or Gabbard were left out of planning was “completely false,” framing secrecy as the only reason for keeping the circle tight. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung echoed the theme, saying President Trump “has full confidence in DNI Gabbard and she’s doing a fantastic job.”
But the optics tell another story: Gabbard’s absence from the inner planning sessions, her non-appearance alongside Trump and key national-security officials during the operation’s announcement, and the fact that she waited days before even posting a brief congratulatory message praising the mission’s execution all suggest a DNI sidelined when core strategic decisions were made.
In an administration that repeatedly pledges unity and strength, Gabbard’s marginalization underscores a glaring contradiction: the same leader who insists on “America First” military daring is also wary of dissenting voices within his own national-security apparatus. For a nation confronted with new foreign entanglements, sidelining the principal intelligence adviser because of her historical opposition to such interventions raises serious questions about how decisions are made — and whose counsel really matters.
This was Gabbard during the first Trump administration—when she was not part of it—warning against U.S. intervention in Venezuela:
The United States, she said, “has a disastrous history of military intervention and regime change around the world. It has brought suffering to millions of people, bankrupted our country, dishonored our troops, and undermined our national security.”
She argued that Washington must end this policy “now, before we get into yet another military conflict—this time in Venezuela.”
While expressing support for the Venezuelan people and their right to a free and fair democracy, Gabbard drew a firm line against U.S. interference: the United States, she said, “should not be in the business of intervening, of picking who should lead another country, and we certainly should not be threatening military action.”
Venezuela, she emphasized, “poses no threat to the United States.” Congress had not authorized war, and there was “no justification for violating the sovereignty of the Venezuelan people.”
She also warned that U.S. threats of regime change in Venezuela were actively undermining diplomacy elsewhere—particularly with North Korea—because Pyongyang views nuclear weapons as the only deterrent against U.S.-led overthrow. “North Korea is going to look at President Trump’s actions, not empty promises,” she said.
Her conclusion was unambiguous:
The United States needs to stay out of Venezuela and let the Venezuelan people determine their own future.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.