Politics is usually a game of polite backstabbing, but sometimes the knives come out in broad daylight. That’s exactly what happened in late 2019. It wasn't just a disagreement; it was a high-stakes collision between the 2016 Democratic nominee and a rising, unorthodox congresswoman from Hawaii.
When people search for the history of Tulsi Gabbard and Hillary Clinton, they usually want to know if one actually called the other a "traitor" or a "Russian asset." The truth is a bit more layered than a single soundbite. It started on a podcast, of all places, and ended up in a $50 million lawsuit in a federal court.
Honestly, the friction goes way back to 2016. Gabbard was the Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) at the time. She did something almost unheard of: she resigned her post to endorse Bernie Sanders. For the Clinton camp, that was a "hammer dropped" moment. They didn't forget.
The "Russian Asset" Comment That Started It All
In October 2019, Hillary Clinton sat down for an interview on the Campaign HQ podcast with David Plouffe. While discussing the upcoming 2020 election, Clinton dropped a bombshell. She claimed that Republicans—and the Russians—were "grooming" a certain female candidate in the Democratic primary to run as a third-party spoiler.
Clinton didn't say the name "Tulsi Gabbard" in that specific sentence.
However, when a spokesperson was asked if the comments were about Gabbard, the response was cryptic: "If the nesting doll fits." That’s a pretty clear nod to those Matryoshka dolls from Russia.
👉 See also: Why Did Trump Fire John Bolton: What Really Happened
The fallout was instant. Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran and then-Major in the Army National Guard, wasn't about to take that lying down. She hit back on Twitter, calling Clinton the "queen of warmongers" and the "personification of the rot" in the Democratic Party. It was a total scorched-earth response.
Why the Feud Actually Matters Today
This wasn't just two politicians bickering. It signaled a massive shift in how the Democratic Party handled internal dissent. Gabbard’s supporters saw it as the "establishment" trying to silence an anti-interventionist voice. Clinton’s supporters saw it as a necessary warning about foreign interference.
The dynamic changed everything for Gabbard. She eventually filed a defamation lawsuit against Clinton in January 2020. She sought $50 million in damages, claiming Clinton’s words had caused "actual malice" and permanent harm to her reputation.
Interestingly, Gabbard dropped the lawsuit just a few months later in May 2020. Her legal team said she wanted to focus on the "looming threats" to the country instead of a protracted legal battle. But the damage—or the rebranding, depending on how you look at it—was done.
Key Moments in the Gabbard-Clinton Timeline
- February 2016: Gabbard resigns from the DNC to support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton.
- October 2019: Clinton suggests a primary candidate is being "groomed" by Russians.
- January 2020: Gabbard sues Clinton for defamation in the Southern District of New York.
- May 2020: The lawsuit is voluntarily dismissed by Gabbard.
- October 2022: Gabbard officially leaves the Democratic Party, citing "elitist cabals."
- 2024-2025: Gabbard joins the Republican Party and is eventually tapped by Donald Trump to be the Director of National Intelligence.
The Long-Term Impact on American Politics
You’ve got to wonder if this feud was the final push that sent Gabbard out of the Democratic Party entirely. By the time 2022 rolled around, she wasn't just a critic; she was an outsider. She started appearing regularly on Fox News and speaking at CPAC.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has stood by her general warnings about third-party candidates acting as spoilers. She often points to the 2016 election results in key states as evidence. To her, the Tulsi Gabbard and Hillary Clinton saga was a matter of national security and electoral math.
To Gabbard, it was personal. In her 2024 book, For Love of Country, she revisited the "grooming" claims. She argued that the media and the political elite use these accusations to "cancel" anyone who challenges the status quo.
What Most People Get Wrong
A big misconception is that Clinton called Gabbard a "Russian agent." In intelligence circles, an "asset" and an "agent" are different things. An agent is someone actively working for a foreign power. An asset can be someone who is simply being used—sometimes unknowingly—to further an agenda.
Clinton’s team later clarified she meant Republicans were the ones doing the grooming, but the "Russian asset" label stuck to the headlines like glue.
💡 You might also like: Cincinnati Snow Emergency: What You Actually Need to Know When the Flakes Fly
The reality is that this feud acted as a catalyst. It accelerated Gabbard's move toward the political right. Today, as the Director of National Intelligence in the second Trump administration, Gabbard holds more power over the nation's secrets than she ever did as a congresswoman.
Actionable Insights for Following This Story:
- Check the primary sources: If you want the full context, listen to the original Campaign HQ podcast from October 17, 2019. Headlines often stripped away the nuance of the conversation between Plouffe and Clinton.
- Watch the legal filings: Though the 2020 lawsuit was dropped, the legal arguments regarding "actual malice" for public figures remain a cornerstone of how defamation works in politics.
- Monitor the DNI tenure: Keep an eye on how Gabbard handles intelligence regarding Russia in her current role. It provides the ultimate "full circle" moment to the 2019 accusations.
- Look at the 2024 party switch: Research Gabbard's Greensboro, North Carolina speech from October 2024. It bridges the gap between her "present" vote on Trump's first impeachment and her full-fledged Republican membership.