CONFIRMATION COMPLICATIONS — After squeaking out a confirmation victory on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s nomination last week, this week doesn’t get any easier for President Donald Trump’s most controversial Cabinet nominees. On Wednesday, HHS nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will take questions from the Senate Finance Committee. And on Thursday, Tulsi Gabbard — Trump’s pick for the director of national intelligence — will face the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The resistance to their nominations is more complicated than with Hegseth, who faced pushback over his qualifications compared to predecessors but largely was confronted with questions about his conduct and character. Once it was clear Hegseth was within the ideological mainstream of the current GOP — and once the president and his allies made clear that departures from the party line would result in primary challenges — the Pentagon was his for the taking. The obstacles facing RFK Jr. and Gabbard are different, rooted in their unorthodox views and non-traditional backgrounds. They are as exotic as any Cabinet-level nominations in decades, which, even in a tribalized capital, makes Republicans uneasy. Neither is an obvious Republican ally — both have sought the Democratic nomination for president in recent years and both depart from conservative orthodoxy on key issues. They’re more akin to pet political projects for Trump, who revels in breaking norms and tweaking the establishment. He has a soft spot for political converts and a willingness to reward supporters regardless of the political risk involved. It’s easy to forget that as recently as October 2023, RFK Jr. — who hails from the storied Democratic political dynasty — was still running in the Democratic presidential primary. Kennedy had once described Trump as a “threat to democracy” and “a terrible president” who “brought this country into disrepute around the globe.” Some of his policy priorities are far out of the mainstream — of either party. His skepticism about the efficacy of vaccines goes beyond just the Covid vaccines. While he told reporters that he would protect the polio vaccine as health secretary, he’s also argued in the past that it led to a wave of new cancers — an idea rejected by medical professionals and scientific studies. He also vowed to remove fluoride, which helps to fight cavities, according to the National Institutes of Health, from America’s drinking water. He’s a proponent of raw milk, which the FDA considers unsafe to drink, due to the higher possibility that it can carry food borne illnesses. Multiple batches of raw milk have recently tested positive for bird flu. RFK also has to deal with a cadre of interest groups and politicians on both sides of the aisle who are suspicious of his views. Anti-abortion Republicans are thus far mostly holding their powder, but many influential groups argue that if they don’t hear what they want from Kennedy in regards to abortion — he’s previously supported abortion rights — on Wednesday, they’ll consider it disqualifying. There is a populist-coloring to some of Kennedy’s positions — he has lambasted pharmaceutical companies and big agriculture and food production, both industries with companies that donate heavily to both parties — that scrambles the partisan equation slightly. And some of his personal health and vaccine choices, which make up the basis of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, have found more of a home in modern conservative politics. The question is whether together it’s enough to overcome his frequent reliance on specious or unconfirmed science. All of this makes him a tough sell, even for a Republican-controlled Senate under Trump’s vengeful gaze. Gabbard’s situation is just as complicated, and perhaps more so given the national security implications of her post — some of her hearing in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee will take place behind closed doors. Like RFK Jr., Gabbard’s ideological commitments are evolving and difficult to map onto the typical left-right spectrum. She was brought up in a secretive offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement called the Science of Identity Foundation — a group that takes strong stands against same-sex relationships and abortion. But by the time she was elected to Congress in 2012, she was recognized by Nancy Pelosi as “an emerging star” in the Democratic Party. In 2016, she was a prominent Bernie Sanders backer in the Democratic presidential primary. By 2020, she ran for president herself as a Democrat. Still, there was much for Trump to like. Along the way, Gabbard became a fierce Hillary Clinton critic — at one point, she filed a defamation suit against Clinton for allegedly lying about Gabbard’s ties to Russia. Gabbard later dropped the suit. Gabbard also drew notice during the 2020 Democratic primary for her sharp attacks on Kamala Harris. When Gabbard left the party in 2022, she said it was controlled by “an elitist cabal or warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness.” The former Hawaii congresswoman has long been a foreign policy isolationist, appealing to a wing of the modern Republican Party. But her critics have latched onto her apparent support for Russia as a disqualifying factor, not to mention her infamous 2017 meeting with now deposed Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Russia and Iran. None of it was a deal-breaker for Trump, but her curious portfolio is unsettling not just to Democrats but to many Republican senators, including those who still want the U.S. to take a more robust role in global affairs. The surest sign of her imperiled nomination is the effort to make the Intelligence committee vote publicly on her nomination. The panel typically deliberates and votes in private, including on presidential nominations, which would insulate any Republican senators from a MAGA-fueled backlash in the event they vote no. Removing that anonymity and forcing a public vote, however, would squeeze wavering Republicans and increase the chances that Gabbard’s nomination reaches the Senate floor. This is the Catch-22 that both Kennedy and Gabbard find themselves caught in. Their unconventional backgrounds, fringe views, checkered histories and record of party-swapping are precisely what captured Trump’s attention — it mirrors his own narrative arc. But those same traits also threaten to sink their nominations. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@politico.com. Or contact tonight’s authors at cmchugh@politico.com and cmahtesian@politico.com or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @calder_mchugh and @PoliticoCharlie.
| 
