Donald Trump’s nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence has raised questions over the politicisation of Washington’s spy agencies and their subservience to the White House.A strident opponent of US military interventionism, the former Hawaii congresswoman has roiled the intelligence community with past comments supportive of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his ally Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.“Her appointment would be a threat to the security of the United States,” said Tom Nichols, a professor at the US Naval War College.“A person with Gabbard’s views should not be allowed anywhere near the crown jewels of American intelligence.”Gabbard, 43, who switched sides from the Democrats to back Trump’s re-election, has yet to be confirmed by the Senate.But lawmakers’ approval would see a woman with no experience in the field take on the eminently political role of US intelligence chief and overall responsibility for the 18 US intelligence agencies, come January.The DNI sits atop of all of America’s intelligence agencies, including the CIA.The post was created in 2005 to remedy a lack of co-ordination between US agencies that lawmakers believed had prevented Washington from foiling the September 11 attacks.“It’s a bureaucratic role to ensure that all the intelligence agencies are speaking to one another, that they are co-ordinating.....that CIA isn’t running the whole show,” explained Mathew Burrows, a former CIA officer now with Washington think-tank Stimson.A key part of Gabbard’s job would be to oversee Trump’s daily intelligence briefing.“Now, Gabbard has the power — because she oversees the president’s daily brief — of removing intel analysis that doesn’t suit whatever Trump decides as US foreign policy.”“I would be worried that her particular views would colour and politicise any of the intel she got.”Gabbard’s views have sparked controversy over the past several years, including when she talked up “Russia’s legitimate concerns” over Ukraine’s possible entry into Nato.Or when she met with Assad in Syria, accusing American political elites of warmongering and asserting her desire to avoid conflict.“Her opposition to a no-fly zone over Syria came not from a desire to avoid war, but from a desire to protect the regime of Bashar Assad,” according to Phillips O’Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of Saint Andrews in Scotland.“What if the US is about to become an ally of Putin? That is a question we can ask ourselves.”With Gabbard’s nomination, Trump no doubt hopes to spare himself the friction with intelligence chiefs that marked his first term, when he called them “naive” and advised them to “go back to school.”At the end of 2018, his defence secretary James Mattis resigned, citing disagreement with the president over the withdrawal of US troops from Syria. Trump then openly scorned “the world’s most overrated general,” roiling the intelligence and defence communities. In May 2019, Trump released classified files on Russia to defend himself against accusations of collusion with Moscow during the 2016 election campaign.Soon afterwards, he sacked the then-DNI Dan Coats. After being denied the job, his deputy Susan Gordon mocked the president who she said had “no foundation for understanding the limits of intelligence”.The second term will certainly start off on a different footing. Trump “wants to neutralise any such criticism that comes from the intel community,” said Burrows.Gabbard’s role is key.“She’s got to understand that her position is telling truth to power. And I’m sure that Trump didn’t have that in mind, because I believe he thinks he has all the truth he needs.”The real consequences of Gabbard’s appointment will be known with time. Intelligence agents, trained to serve the state regardless of who is in charge, will continue their mission as always. But already, “the community inevitably fears a witch-hunt. People have taken a stand on the election, and some have come out into the open,” said Alexandre Papaemmanuel, a professor at Sciences-Po in Paris.Within the intelligence community of Western allies, “there are channels that have existed for a long time, and there is trust between men and women who have been in contact for a long time,” he told AFP. But he predicts that Trump, with Gabbard as his lieutenant, will disrupt that.“We can also imagine that these relationships will be more transactional than the fluid ones we know today, based on a shared understanding of the threats and fragility facing the Western world.“Now that this alignment no longer exists, will information sharing be as fluid?”