Nominee for White House briefing role pulled over Gaza war stance
LONDON: US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard decided against appointing a critic of Israel's war in Gaza to a top government post over fears that doing so would anger members of President Donald Trump's administration.
Daniel Davis, a senior fellow at the Defense Priorities think tank in Washington, was under consideration for the role of deputy director for mission integration, in charge of — among other things — putting together the president's daily intelligence briefings.
However, a source within the administration told the New York Times that Gabbard reconsidered the appointment after Davis's recommendation received criticism from several of her colleagues, Republican members of Congress, and other right-wing bodies and figures over his stance on Israel.
Davis wrote on social media in January that US support for the Gaza war was a 'stain on our character as a nation, as a culture, that will not soon go away.'
On Wednesday, the Anti-Defamation League said his appointment would be 'extremely dangerous.'
Marc Polymeropoulos, a former CIA operations officer, said Davis's stance on the conflict ran contrary to mainstream Republican positions.
'His overt criticism of Israel and total opposition to any military action against Iran seems to run counter to current administration policy,' added Polymeropoulos, a fellow at the Atlantic Council.
The NYT reported that 'allies' of Davis said there was 'no hint of antisemitism or opposition to Israel in his work.'
Davis is known to be skeptical of US involvement in a number of overseas conflicts, in line with the position of Defense Priorities, which has called for less American involvement in the Middle East and an end to the war in Ukraine.
Davis has also been vocal about the suffering of Palestinians, calling plans to remove people from Gaza 'ethnic cleansing.'
Gabbard is also a skeptic of US overseas intervention, and while she has said little about Gaza in recent months, Davis has been vocal on social media in supporting similar stances to her on conflicts such as Ukraine and the transition in Syria.
However, the Trump administration is known to be split on foreign policy directions the president should pursue, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz known to be more hawkish, especially on US policy toward Iran.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Saudi Gazette
2 hours ago
- Saudi Gazette
The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule
DELHI — In the mid-1970s, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's imposition of the state of emergency, India entered a period where civil liberties were suspended and much of the political opposition was jailed. Behind this authoritarian curtain, her Congress party government quietly began reimagining the country — not as a democracy rooted in checks and balances, but as a centralized state governed by command and control, historian Srinath Raghavan reveals in his new book. In Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India, Prof Raghavan shows how Gandhi's top bureaucrats and party loyalists began pushing for a presidential system — one that would centralize executive power, sideline an "obstructionist" judiciary and reduce parliament to a symbolic chorus. Inspired in part by Charles de Gaulle's France, the push for a stronger presidency in India reflected a clear ambition to move beyond the constraints of parliamentary democracy — even if it never fully materialized. It all began, writes Prof Raghavan, in September 1975, when BK Nehru, a seasoned diplomat and a close aide of Gandhi, wrote a letter hailing the Emergency as a "tour de force of immense courage and power produced by popular support" and urged Gandhi to seize the moment. Parliamentary democracy had "not been able to provide the answer to our needs", Nehru wrote. In this system, the executive was continuously dependent on the support of an elected legislature "which is looking for popularity and stops any unpleasant measure". What India needed, Nehru said, was a directly elected president — freed from parliamentary dependence and capable of taking "tough, unpleasant and unpopular decisions" in the national interest, Prof Raghavan writes. The model he pointed to was de Gaulle's France — concentrating power in a strong presidency. Nehru imagined a single, seven-year presidential term, proportional representation in Parliament and state legislatures, a judiciary with curtailed powers and a press reined in by strict libel laws. He even proposed stripping fundamental rights — right to equality or freedom of speech, for example — of their justiciability. Nehru urged Indira Gandhi to "make these fundamental changes in the Constitution now when you have a two-thirds majority". His ideas were "received with rapture" by the prime minister's secretary PN Dhar. Gandhi then gave Nehru approval to discuss these ideas with her party leaders but said "very clearly and emphatically" that he should not convey the impression that they had the stamp of her approval. Prof Raghavan writes that the ideas met with enthusiastic support from senior Congress leaders like Jagjivan Ram and foreign minister Swaran Singh. The chief minister of Haryana state was blunt: "Get rid of this election nonsense. If you ask me just make our sister [Indira Gandhi] President for life and there's no need to do anything else". M Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu – one of two non-Congress chief ministers consulted — was unimpressed. When Nehru reported back to Gandhi, she remained non-committal, Prof Raghavan writes. She instructed her closest aides to explore the proposals further. What emerged was a document titled "A Fresh Look at Our Constitution: Some suggestions", drafted in secrecy and circulated among trusted advisors. It proposed a president with powers greater than even their American counterpart, including control over judicial appointments and legislation. A new "Superior Council of Judiciary", chaired by the president, would interpret "laws and the Constitution" — effectively neutering the Supreme Court. Gandhi sent this document to Dhar, who recognized it "twisted the Constitution in an ambiguously authoritarian direction". Congress president DK Barooah tested the waters by publicly calling for a "thorough re-examination" of the Constitution at the party's 1975 annual session. The idea never fully crystallized into a formal proposal. But its shadow loomed over the Forty-second Amendment Act, passed in 1976, which expanded Parliament's powers, limited judicial review and further centralized executive authority. The amendment made striking down laws harder by requiring supermajorities of five or seven judges, and aimed to dilute the Constitution's 'basic structure doctrine' that limited parliament's power. It also handed the federal government sweeping authority to deploy armed forces in states, declare region-specific Emergencies, and extend the President's Rule — direct federal rule — from six months to a year. It also put election disputes out of the judiciary's reach. This was not yet a presidential system, but it carried its genetic imprint — a powerful executive, marginalized judiciary and weakened checks and balances. The Statesman newspaper warned that "by one sure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favor of the parliament." Meanwhile, Gandhi's loyalists were going all in. Defense Minister Bansi Lal urged "lifelong power" for her as prime minister, while Congress members in the northern states of Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh unanimously called for a new constituent assembly in October 1976. "The prime minister was taken aback. She decided to snub these moves and hasten the passage of the amendment bill in the parliament," writes Prof Raghavan. By December 1976, the bill had been passed by both houses of parliament and ratified by 13 state legislatures and signed into law by the president. After Gandhi's shock defeat in 1977, the short-lived Janata Party — a patchwork of anti-Gandhi forces — moved quickly to undo the damage. Through the Forty-third and Forty-fourth Amendments, it rolled back key parts of the Forty Second, scrapping authoritarian provisions and restoring democratic checks and balances. Gandhi was swept back to power in January 1980, after the Janata Party government collapsed due to internal divisions and leadership struggles. Curiously, two years later, prominent voices in the party again mooted the idea of a presidential system. In 1982, with President Sanjiva Reddy's term ending, Gandhi seriously considered stepping down as prime minister to become president of India. Her principal secretary later revealed she was "very serious" about the move. She was tired of carrying the Congress party on her back and saw the presidency as a way to deliver a "shock treatment to her party, thereby giving it a new stimulus". Ultimately, she backed down. Instead, she elevated Zail Singh, her loyal home minister, to the presidency. Despite serious flirtation, India never made the leap to a presidential system. Did Gandhi, a deeply tactical politician, hold herself back ? Or was there no national appetite for radical change and India's parliamentary system proved sticky? There was a hint of presidential drift in the early 1970s, as India's parliamentary democracy — especially after 1967 — grew more competitive and unstable, marked by fragile coalitions, according to Prof Raghavan. Around this time, voices began suggesting that a presidential system might suit India better. The Emergency became the moment when these ideas crystallized into serious political thinking. "The aim was to reshape the system in ways that immediately strengthened her hold on power. There was no grand long-term design — most of the lasting consequences of her [Gandhi's] rule were likely unintended," Prof Raghavan told the BBC. "During the Emergency, her primary goal was short-term: to shield her office from any challenge. The Forty Second Amendment was crafted to ensure that even the judiciary couldn't stand in her way." The itch for a presidential system within the Congress never quite faded. As late as April 1984, senior minister Vasant Sathe launched a nationwide debate advocating a shift to presidential governance — even while in power. But six months later, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in Delhi, and with her, the conversation abruptly died. India stayed a parliamentary democracy. — BBC
Leaders
10 hours ago
- Leaders
Saudi Crown Prince Demands Global Action to End Israeli Aggression
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has emphasized the international community's vital role in ending the 'disastrous repercussions' of Israeli aggression on Palestine. He made these remarks during a reception ceremony at the Royal Court in Mina Palace, where he welcomed heads of states and senior officials attending Hajj. 'This year, Eid al-Adha arrived as our brothers in Palestine continue to suffer from Israeli aggression,' the Crown Prince stated, according to the Saudi Press Agency (SPA). His words highlighted the ongoing struggles faced by Palestinians, particularly during significant religious observances. A Call for Peace and Protection Prince Mohammed bin Salman urged the international community to take decisive action. 'We emphasize the role of the international community in ending the disastrous repercussions of this aggression,' he said. He called for protecting innocent civilians and establishing a new reality where Palestine enjoys peace in accordance with international legitimacy resolutions. Palestinians in Gaza observed the Eid al-Adha holiday under the shadow of war for the second consecutive year. This ongoing conflict underscores the urgent need for international intervention and support. Commitment to Pilgrims During Hajj The Crown Prince arrived in Mina on Thursday to oversee measures taken by relevant authorities during the annual Hajj pilgrimage. He reassured attendees that the Kingdom will continue to exert all its efforts to serve pilgrims effectively. 'The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has placed this at the forefront of its priorities,' Prince Mohammed stated, emphasizing that the Kingdom devotes all its capabilities to serving pilgrims and facilitating their rituals with ease and comfort. 'Saudi Arabia will continue to carry out this duty, recognizing the great responsibility and honor of service,' he concluded. His commitment reflects the Kingdom's dedication to both its citizens and the global Muslim community. Short link : Post Views: 19
Saudi Gazette
11 hours ago
- Saudi Gazette
Israel's defense minister vows to prevent aid boat carrying Greta Thunberg reaching Gaza
JERUSALEM — Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Sunday that Israel wouldn't allow anyone to break its naval blockade of the Palestinian territory, which he said was aimed at preventing Hamas from importing arms. In a post on X Katz announced that he has instructed the Israeli Defense Force "to act to prevent the Madleen hate flotilla" from reaching the strip's coast: "You should turn back -- because you will not reach Gaza." Thunberg is among 12 activists aboard the Madleen, which is operated by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition. The vessel departed Sicily last Sunday on a mission that aims to break the sea blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian aid, while raising awareness over the growing humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian enclave. The activists had said they planned to reach Gaza's territorial waters as early as Sunday. Rima Hassan, a French member of the European Parliament who is of Palestinian descent, is among the others onboard. She has been barred from entering Israel because of her opposition to Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. Also on board is "Game of Thrones" star Liam Cunningham. After a three-month total blockade aimed at pressuring Hamas, Israel started allowing some basic aid into Gaza last month, but humanitarian workers have warned of famine unless the blockade and the war end. An attempt last month by Freedom Flotilla to reach Gaza by sea failed after another of the group's vessels was attacked by two drones while sailing in international waters off Malta. The group blamed Israel for the attack, which damaged the front section of the ship. Israel denied the allegations. — Euronews
