Could Tulsi Gabbard and Matt Gaetz Change Edward Snowden’s Fate?
As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to reshape the U.S. government, the potential cabinet appointments of Tulsi Gabbard as the head of U.S. intelligence and Matt Gaetz to lead the Justice Department may have significant implications for Edward Snowden, the whistleblower who leaked classified information about the government’s surveillance programs.
The Political Landscape
Both Gabbard, a former Democratic representative from Hawaii, and Gaetz, a former Republican representative from Florida, have a long history of advocating for Snowden. Their shared belief that Snowden should not face punishment for disclosing the U.S. National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance activities presents a unique conundrum. However, securing Senate confirmation presents a challenging uphill battle due to their anti-establishment views.
During their tenure in Congress, both Gabbard and Gaetz co-sponsored legislation urging the federal government to dismiss all charges against Snowden. Gabbard, who ran for the presidency in 2020, assured the public that, if elected, she would protect whistleblowers like Snowden. “If it wasn’t for Snowden, the American people would never have learned the NSA was collecting phone records and spying on Americans,” she proclaimed during an appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience.” This sentiment has remained a consistent feature of her political identity.
The Whistleblower’s Legacy
Edward Snowden, who was working as an IT contractor for the NSA in 2013, revolutionized the discourse on government surveillance when he leaked thousands of classified documents to journalists in Hong Kong. These materials shed light on highly controversial intelligence-gathering programs used by the NSA and the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), which were designed to monitor their own citizens. His actions sparked a global debate about privacy, government transparency, and the limits of surveillance.
Following his leaks, Snowden sought asylum in various countries, eventually winding up in Russia when U.S. authorities revoked his passport. In 2022, he was granted Russian citizenship, yet he maintains a desire to return to the United States—a return complicated by the criminal charges awaiting him.
Public and Political Reactions
While some hail Snowden as a hero for exposing government overreach, others regard him as a traitor who endangered national security. For Trump’s prospective cabinet members, this duality poses significant challenges. Gaetz openly declared support for Snowden on social media, tweeting, “Pardon @Snowden,” while Gabbard reinforced her commitment to whistleblower protection during her campaign, stating, “As president, I will protect whistle-blowers who expose threats to our freedom and liberty.”
However, not everyone agrees with their approach. Sue Gordon, who served as deputy director of national intelligence under Trump, has vocally criticized Gabbard’s advocacy on CBS, asserting that unauthorized disclosures of intelligence hinder national security and partnerships. “He had no authority, and he had different paths. He harmed America,” Gordon contended, emphasizing the potential repercussions of pardoning Snowden.
A Shift in Trump’s Stance?
Donald Trump’s opinions on Snowden have evolved over the years. In 2013, he labeled Snowden a “bad guy” and suggested severe punishment, stating, “there is still a thing called execution.” Yet, by the time of the 2020 presidential campaign, Trump hinted he might consider a pardon for Snowden, reflecting a shift that aligns with the rising support for whistleblowers among certain segments of the American electorate.
For his part, Snowden clarified in a 2019 interview that he was not primarily seeking a pardon; rather, he desired a fair trial that would provide an opportunity to defend his actions. He argued that it’s vital for any American, including himself, to have access to a public interest defense during legal proceedings. “I’m not asking for a parade. I’m not asking for a pardon. I’m not asking for a pass. What I’m asking for is a fair trial,” he insisted.
The Broader Implications
As Gabbard and Gaetz prepare for potential confirmation battles in the Senate, the broader implications of their appointments—should they be approved—remain at the forefront of national conversation. Their commitment to championing whistleblowers like Snowden signifies a potential shift in U.S. policy regarding intelligence transparency and surveillance practices. Yet, the divisions surrounding Snowden—regarded by some as a hero and by others as a traitor—illustrate a fractured public discourse on government accountability and citizen privacy rights.
Ultimately, whether Gabbard and Gaetz will succeed in their appointments remains uncertain, but their shared support for Snowden could pave the way for a reevaluation of his legacy and the treatment of whistleblowers. The ongoing debate presents a critical moment for American democracy, raising questions about the balance between national security and civil liberties.
The Future of Whistleblowing in America
The outcomes of Gabbard and Gaetz’s potential leadership roles may redefine the narrative around whistleblowers in the U.S. Recognizing the implications of their advocacy for Snowden may further fuel debates on government transparency. If they do ascend to their desired positions, it could signal a new era in which whistleblower protection is prioritized—ultimately affecting the rights of citizens and whistleblowers for decades to come.
In a changing political landscape, the nomination of Gabbard and Gaetz foretells not just personal victories in their political careers, but also a critical juncture in the journey towards understanding and addressing the complexities of surveillance, privacy, and freedom in the United States.
