Congressional Oversight Hearings are meant to monitor the implementation of policy by any given presidential administration and hold those accountable who may have violated people’s civil rights, the nation’s laws, or codes of conduct. However, it seems that more focus than ever is on proselytizing, rather than asking hard questions. Meanwhile, confirmation hearings have always been partisan in this way. Those are largely based on support for a nominee, as we saw in the hearing for Markwayne Mullin, where Republican lawmakers and Mullin promoted false narratives about immigration and migrants who have been detained and deported under Trump.
Oversight hearings are supposed to act as a backstop against abuses of power and to ensure federal agencies and officials comply with legislative intent. They are meant to provide insight so the public can understand if federal agencies are ethically and legally carrying out their duties. Instead, many lawmakers focus on partisan politics and often spread misinformation, which is damaging. This is easily noted by the hateful rhetoric often shared by lawmakers that later motivates aggressive tactics by Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Some oversight hearings can be relatively basic and focused on routine policy implementation, while others are more adversarial and revolve around scandals and investigations. Former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem’s attempt to defend her actions during an oversight hearing two weeks ago is a great example of just how off the rails they can go. Director of National Intelligence (DBI) Tulsi Gabbard’s appearances at recent hearings are another. While not uncommon, these are just two of the most recent cases.
Lately, DHS hearings have been more focused on drug smuggling in Latin America, a major component of the Trump administration’s villainizing of Latino and Caribbean Island immigrants. However, it’s difficult to overlook the lack of focus on smuggling networks in the U.S. It’s even more challenging to ignore how the White House opened the doors for various drug smugglers whose operations are in Latin America, while labeling immigrants as gang members, terrorists, and the “worst of the worst” criminals.
For Gabbard, her hearing was focused more on her past statements. But there was plenty of room for the Islamophobia often seen in Republican politics, especially when it comes to national security. Her history of fearmongering about the “Islamization of America” falls in line with much of the recent Republican political rhetoric in Texas, which spreads unfounded fears of so-called “Sharia Law.” For example, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) indicated that the latest Texas propaganda is spreading to Congress when he mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood, allowing Gabbard to put a focus on “Islamic extremists,” helping drive the false narrative.
Gabbard’s sycophancy was also noted in the portrayal of Iran, as she carried the same tone about the war as Donald Trump, suggesting Iran is all but defeated. There were many references to the “regime,” bolstering the idea of the need for “regime change.” Gabbard’s narrative was the same as we have seen being promoted across corporate news media, suggesting Iran would be worse off if the U.S. stopped the war now. An idea based on the duplicitous notion that the U.S. is liberating people by bombing them in a war that it started.
When it came to questions about Cuba, Gabbard referred to the island as a source of regional instability and a national security risk. She warned that instability in Cuba and Haiti could lead to mass migration out of those countries and warned that “transnational criminal organizations” could exploit it to “threaten the American homeland.” At no point did she address the primary causes behind the instability in Cuba or Haiti (the United States’ meddling), highlighting just how damaging the politicization of these hearings can be.
Aside from Gabbard, all the top intelligence chiefs were put in the awkward position of trying to reconcile Trump, Hegseth, and Rubio’s statements about Iran with reality. Many intelligence agencies in the U.S. and abroad concluded that Iran wasn’t an imminent threat, yet several Trump administration officials have declared otherwise. When asked if intelligence assessments declared Iran an imminent nuclear threat, Gabbard danced around the question, saying, “The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the President.”
As with many of these hearings, lies are often exposed. However, they are often overlooked in favor of politicization, leaving the nation wondering where accountability comes into play. The U.S. government has never been shy about assigning blame, but it has a problem holding people accountable. Historically, presidents have gotten away with war crimes, rigging elections, and a host of other criminal activities, as have many people in their proximity.
Yet, very few, if any, were ever held accountable. Those who have been held accountable have typically been low-level confidants or advisors and widely considered fall guys.
As Trump wages war around the world, deposes or murders world leaders, meddles in elections, and attempts to starve 10 million people in Cuba, these hearings can provide some insight. But will Gabbard ever be held accountable for manipulating intelligence reports about Venezuela and firing those who refused to toe the line? Will Noem be held accountable for her abuse of power, illegal orders, and outright disregard for Black and Brown lives? Will Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth be held accountable for ordering drone strikes on boats that killed civilians, bombing schools full of children, and who knows what else?
Noem being promoted instead of fired further highlights the problem.
In the U.S., we have oversight everywhere, not just in Congress. Various government agencies exist primarily to watch over the activities of federal agencies. There are also innumerable nonprofits and civil society groups that challenge government overreach, unconstitutional legislation, and protect civil and human rights. Scholars and prominent political thinkers also play an oversight role, as does society as a whole. It seems the U.S. is overstocked on oversight and running critically low on accountability.
Discover more from The Antagonist Magazine
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.