In a candid and unflinching discussion, former Congresswoman and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has revisited her highly publicized clash with Hillary Clinton, painting a vivid picture of deep ideological divisions, personal consequences, and what she sees as the disturbing politicization of American institutions.

For years, the tension between Gabbard and Clinton has been simmering in the political spotlight. But in this new reflection, Gabbard goes beyond the headlines, detailing the philosophical rift that fueled their animosity — and the very real ways it shaped her political trajectory.

A War of Worldviews

Gabbard began by sharply criticizing Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy record, describing it as a series of dangerous and costly missteps. She accused Clinton of championing interventions that destabilized regions and endangered American lives, with Libya serving as her prime example. According to Gabbard, Clinton’s support for military action there — and the chaos that followed — exemplifies a “warmonger” mindset she believes has dominated U.S. foreign policy for decades.

This wasn’t just a difference in political strategy. For Gabbard, it was a moral line in the sand. The split was so profound that she made the dramatic decision to resign from her position at the Democratic National Committee in 2016, an act she says freed her to publicly support Bernie Sanders in his insurgent campaign against Clinton.

“The media didn’t want to talk about her record,” Gabbard said, accusing major outlets of uncritically endorsing Clinton based on her political stature rather than her real-world decisions. That, she claims, made it even more urgent to speak out — even if it meant alienating herself from the most powerful figures in her own party.

From Political Enemy to Political Target

But Gabbard’s break with Clinton didn’t just end in sharp words and political distancing. She alleges that her public dissent triggered a far more personal form of retaliation. In a startling revelation, Gabbard recounted her experience of being placed on a domestic terror watch list — something she says was driven by political motivations rather than legitimate security concerns.

According to Gabbard, the increased scrutiny was relentless. Every trip through an airport became a gauntlet of invasive checks and questioning. “It wasn’t just a minor inconvenience,” she said, describing encounters with TSA agents and even air marshals. “It was a constant reminder that I was being watched.”

She links the escalation directly to her public criticisms of political figures, particularly during television appearances. In her view, this illustrates a troubling reality: the intersection between media exposure and political retribution can be both immediate and punishing.

The Chilling Effect on Free Speech

For Gabbard, her experience is just one piece of a much larger and more troubling trend — the weaponization of surveillance and intelligence systems against dissenters. Whether targeting public figures or ordinary citizens, she argues, such practices create a “chilling effect” on free speech.

“When people see what happens to those who speak out, they think twice,” she said. “That fear is the point. It’s meant to silence debate before it even begins.”

She warns that this culture of intimidation doesn’t just affect politicians. Everyday Americans, she says, risk being labeled extremists simply for expressing unpopular opinions, creating a climate in which conformity is rewarded and dissent is punished.

A Party Unrecognizable

Gabbard also used the conversation to take a long look at the Democratic Party itself — the political home she once embraced and later left behind. She argues that the party’s values have drifted far from the principles that once defined it, such as robust free speech, working-class advocacy, and a commitment to social justice.

“John F. Kennedy would not recognize the party today,” she said, lamenting what she sees as a shift toward ideological extremes and a rejection of the open debate that once defined American democracy.

The inspiration that drew her to the party, she recalled, came from leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who combined moral courage with a practical focus on lifting up everyday people. Now, she says, those ideals have been overshadowed by hyper-partisanship and intolerance toward internal criticism.

A Surprising Political Alliance

Perhaps most strikingly, Gabbard contrasted her disillusionment with the Democratic Party’s direction with her growing respect for certain policies championed by Donald Trump. She pointed to his tax reforms aimed at easing the burden on working-class Americans as an example of leadership that transcended partisan lines.

Her remarks also highlighted an unlikely alliance: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s collaboration with Trump on select issues. In Gabbard’s view, this shows that political opponents can unite when shared values and practical goals align — something she believes is desperately needed in an era of entrenched political division.

“The goal should always be the prosperity and freedom of all Americans,” she said, framing her evolving political stance not as a partisan defection but as a commitment to principle over party.

The Bigger Picture

Tulsi Gabbard’s story is more than a personal feud with one of the most famous political figures of the past two decades. It’s a window into a broader struggle over the future of American politics — one that pits establishment power against independent voices, party loyalty against individual conscience, and security policy against civil liberty.

Her warnings are stark: the tools of government meant to protect the public can just as easily be turned inward, targeting political dissent. And when they are, the cost is measured not just in lost privacy, but in the gradual erosion of a free and open society.

Whether one sees Gabbard as a truth-telling maverick or a political outlier, her account forces uncomfortable questions into the spotlight. How much dissent can a democracy tolerate before it begins to silence itself? And who decides which voices are heard — and which are watched?

In Gabbard’s telling, those questions are no longer theoretical. They are here, now, and shaping the reality of American political life.