In a recent interview with health and wellness personality Jillian Michaels, journalist Megyn Kelly revisited a controversy that has long hovered over former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Kelly pushed back strongly against persistent claims from the political left that Gabbard is aligned with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad—an accusation she described as baseless and politically driven.
The conversation, which aired on November 20, 2024, has reignited discussion around why Gabbard, a decorated military veteran and former Democratic rising star, became such a lightning rod for criticism. According to Kelly, it wasn’t Gabbard’s foreign policy views that sparked backlash—it was her refusal to toe the party line, particularly when it came to Hillary Clinton.
“She had everything the Democratic Party claims to value—she’s a woman, a minority, and a combat veteran,” Kelly noted. “But the moment she questioned Clinton’s authority within the party, she became a target.”
Kelly argued that Gabbard’s break from the establishment, including her early support for Bernie Sanders and her vocal frustration with how the 2016 Democratic primaries were handled, marked the beginning of a sustained effort to discredit her. That included, Kelly said, Clinton accusing Gabbard of being a Russian asset—without evidence.
“Hillary Clinton started this narrative,” Kelly stated. “She’s done this before—labeling her opponents as Russian sympathizers when they pose a political threat.”
Kelly also touched on the broader implications of this tactic, referencing how similar accusations were directed at Donald Trump during the 2016 election cycle. She suggested that the pattern reflects a deeper resistance to political outsiders—figures who refuse to play by traditional party rules.
In discussing foreign policy, Kelly raised another point: that listening to the concerns of other world powers, like Russia, shouldn’t be equated with allegiance. She questioned whether the U.S. missed an opportunity to de-escalate tensions by ignoring Vladimir Putin’s warnings about NATO expansion—an issue that, in her view, contributed to the current geopolitical crisis.
At its core, Kelly believes the criticism of Gabbard stems from the same playbook used against Trump: paint independent voices as dangerous simply because they don’t fall in line.
“Her biggest crime,” Kelly said, “was thinking for herself. And in today’s political climate, that alone makes you a threat.”
While Gabbard’s meeting with Assad remains a flashpoint for critics, Kelly pointed out that diplomacy—even with controversial leaders—has long been part of U.S. foreign policy. She cited Trump’s engagement with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un as a similar move that, while controversial, was done in the name of dialogue over conflict.
In the end, Kelly argued, what makes Gabbard dangerous to the establishment is not her positions—it’s her independence.
