By: Fern Sidman

In a striking display of internal tensions within President Trump’s evolving second-term administration, Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), has backed away from appointing a critic of Israel’s war in Gaza to a prominent intelligence post after considerable backlash from segments of the Republican coalition. As reported by The New York Times on Wednesday, the incident has exposed deepening fault lines over foreign policy direction within Trump’s national security team, particularly regarding Israel and U.S. interventionism abroad.

At the center of the controversy is Daniel Davis, a senior fellow at the Washington-based think tank Defense Priorities, who was undergoing a background check to assume the role of Deputy Director for Mission Integration—a powerful position responsible for compiling the President’s Daily Brief (PDB), the most sensitive and influential intelligence document that informs presidential decisions and national security strategy.

According to officials cited in The New York Times report, Davis’s potential appointment triggered swift opposition from influential voicest, many of whom viewed his skeptical stance on U.S. military involvement—particularly in the Middle East—as incompatible with what they expect from those overseeing America’s top intelligence reporting mechanisms. Davis’s critical posture toward U.S. engagement in Gaza and his prior statements on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reportedly alarmed members of Trump’s political base and advocacy groups that strongly support Israel.

While Davis is well-known in Washington policy circles for his strong non-interventionist views—an ethos reflected in Defense Priorities’ broader mission—his critics have accused him of taking positions that undermine American support for Israel during wartime. The think tank, which receives funding from libertarian billionaire Charles Koch, has publicly supported Trump’s call for an immediate cease-fire in the war in Ukraine and has consistently advocated for scaling back U.S. entanglements overseas.

Yet it was Davis’s stance on Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza that became the focal point of backlash. As indicated  in The New York Times report, The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued a sharp condemnation ahead of the now-aborted appointment, labeling it “extremely dangerous.” In a pointed social media post, the ADL accused Davis of minimizing the gravity of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel and of contributing to efforts that “undermine American support for Israel.”

In a statement sent to media outlets, StopAntisemitism declared that it was “deeply troubled” by Gabbard’s consideration of Davis for the influential role of Deputy Director for Mission Integration..

Their statement presents a scathing indictment of Davis’s prior statements and policy positions, framing him as an individual whose worldview runs counter to America’s core national security imperatives and moral commitments—particularly in regard to Israel, Iran, and U.S. counterterrorism strategy.

According to StopAntisemitism, Davis’s record raises “alarming red flags,” beginning with a dismissive attitude toward the threat posed by Iran, despite Iran’s well-documented role as a principal state sponsor of terrorism and its explicit vows to annihilate both Israel and the United States.

They further criticized Davis for opposing military action to curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions while expressing support for the Iran nuclear deal—positions that StopAntisemitism sees as naïve and dangerous, especially in light of Iran’s deep involvement in proxy conflicts and terrorism across the region.

Perhaps most explosively, the organization accused Davis of accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing and referring to Gaza as a “prison”—language they say echoes extreme anti-Israel rhetoric and delegitimizes the defensive measures taken by the Jewish state.

Moreover, StopAntisemitism also echoed the ADL’s contention that Davis appeared to rationalize or justify the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre, pointing to comments in which Davis attributed the attack to “decades of Israeli repression”—a narrative the group vehemently rejects as morally abhorrent and historically distorted.

The statement also took issue with Davis’s repeated citation of inflated Gaza casualty figures, which the group claims not only mirror but surpass even Hamas’s own propaganda. According to StopAntisemitism, such behavior undermines the credibility of U.S. intelligence assessments and gives undue legitimacy to adversarial narratives that weaponize civilian suffering for political aims.

Further fueling concern was Davis’s assertion that “Israel is playing the U.S. like a cheap fiddle”—a phrase StopAntisemitism said reflects a conspiratorial worldview that casts Israel as a manipulative actor rather than a trusted ally. They also cited his opposition to Israeli efforts to combat Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, and his apparent resistance to the targeted killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, despite Haniyeh’s leadership of a group responsible for countless terror attacks against civilians.

The group additionally charged that Davis has publicly defended the Houthi movement, which continues to launch violent attacks on both American and Israeli interests in the region. His associations with peers that are “deeply anti-Semitic” further compound their concern.

In its most forceful language, StopAntisemitism concluded:“Antisemitism is anti-American. Israel and the U.S. share the same values and enemies. No one who sides with our enemies over our allies should have access to our nation’s security.”

Their warning speaks to a larger concern voiced by other critics: that individuals entrusted with shaping the intelligence presented to the President should not be those who, in the view of watchdog groups and pro-Israel advocates, harbor sympathies for U.S. adversaries or display hostility toward America’s most trusted allies.

The growing controversy surrounding Davis’s aborted appointment also highlights a broader ideological conflict inside President Trump’s administration between traditional pro-Israel hawks and non-interventionist populists. As previously reported by The New York Times, Trump’s intelligence and national security apparatus is increasingly divided between figures such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, both of whom are strongly aligned with traditional Republican foreign policy, and officials such as Gabbard, who espouse skepticism toward military engagements and American entanglements abroad.

While Gabbard ultimately withdrew the Davis nomination following widespread backlash, the fallout calls attention to the degree to which foreign policy ideology is now shaping national security staffing decisions, particularly in sensitive roles that intersect with intelligence interpretation and threat prioritization.