Rick Crawford should be Trump's next director of national intelligence
Schindler faults Gabbard’s tenure, arguing that she neglected reforms and introduced greater partisanship into the intelligence community.
SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYThe Washington Examiner is an established national outlet with an identifiable author and a distinct opinion section. Its institutional credibility is stronger than that of an aggregator, though the argument here is explicitly an op-ed rather than independent straight-news reporting.
- Source type — Established national publication; the page is clearly labeled as opinion.
- Author attribution — The piece names John Schindler and identifies his intelligence background.
- Editorial standards — A recognizable newsroom and opinion format provide some editorial accountability, but this piece is advocacy for a specific choice.
The argument provides relevant background and identifies the author’s intelligence experience, but relies largely on the author’s assertions and evaluations, with few directly attributed sources or presented counterarguments.
HOW WE SCORE ↗This is an explicit argument for Crawford’s appointment. It presents extensive criticism of the alternatives and administration choices without offering counterarguments or responses from the people criticized.
- Opinion vs reporting — The piece explicitly advances a preferred candidate for the job.
- Counterarguments presented — No case for another nominee or defense of the criticized officials is presented.
- Loaded language — Descriptions such as “wholly unqualified” and “witch-hunts” convey a strong verdict.
The piece strongly advocates for Crawford and criticizes several Trump administration intelligence choices, but its framing does not clearly align with a consistent left- or right-leaning political position.
- Framing — Presents Crawford as the preferred replacement and emphasizes competence and intelligence-community reform rather than a partisan policy dispute.
- Language tone — Uses strongly evaluative language about Gabbard and Pulte, while also criticizing Trump’s handling of intelligence advice.
- Source selection — The author makes the case directly, without competing outside perspectives.
John Schindler argues that Rep. Rick Crawford should become the next director of national intelligence, praising his intelligence oversight and bipartisan work. The opinion piece criticizes Tulsi Gabbard’s tenure and President Donald Trump’s choice of Bill Pulte as acting director.
Schindler says Gabbard’s tenure was ineffective and overly partisan, and argues that Pulte lacks intelligence or national-security experience. He also says intelligence warnings about the Iran war did not change Trump’s thinking, and that the intelligence community needs a director able to speak candidly to the president and keep Congress informed.
Schindler recommends Crawford, citing his experience as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, his work on intelligence reforms, and his advocacy regarding anomalous health incidents. He describes Crawford as knowledgeable about intelligence agencies, willing to work with Democrats, and loyal to Trump.
Community verdict
VOTING CLOSED
No good or bad look here
This story reports what happened without casting Gabbard in a good or bad light, so readers don’t rate it and it doesn’t count toward Gabbard’s record.
People in this story
SWIPE →Director of national intelligence whose tenure is criticized
House Intelligence Committee chairman recommended for director of national intelligence
Crawford's version of this story ↗
CIA director who warned Trump about assessments of Iran’s government
President who appointed Pulte as acting director and received intelligence assessments
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…