Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has struggled to explain the threat posed by Iran after being warned by the White House that the president would be watching her testimony closely.
The former Democrat—who once opposed Donald Trump going to war with Iran—faced intense scrutiny on Wednesday over how she advised the president ahead of the Middle East conflict.
Testifying under oath on Capitol Hill, Gabbard was asked if intelligence agencies believed, as Trump has claimed, that Iran posed an “imminent nuclear threat.”
“The only person who can determine what is and isn’t an imminent threat is the president,” she told the hearing, which takes place each year to publicly brief lawmakers on “worldwide threats.”
“False!” clapped back Democrat Senator Jon Ossoff. “This is the ‘worldwide threats’ hearing, where you present to Congress national intelligence—timely, objective, and independent of political considerations."
“It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States,” he added.
The hearing was uncomfortable for Gabbard, taking place as a MAGA civil war erupted over the bombshell resignation of Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who declared he “cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran.”
“Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” he wrote in an explosive resignation letter posted to social media on Tuesday.
But fallout from Kent’s resignation continued on Wednesday, with some Trump allies setting their sights on Gabbard, who has not only been at odds with Trump over Iran in the past, but also knew in advance that Kent was planning to resign.
“Kent reports to Tulsi Gabbard,” right-wing firebrand Laura Loomer wrote on X, describing him as a “notorious leaker.”
“I have been warning you all about Joe Kent for a long time now. I predict Tulsi Gabbard will resign next.”
After testifying on the Hill last week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was unceremoniously fired by Trump the following day. The president was reportedly angry over questions about her spending millions on a self-promoting ad campaign and about her alleged lover, Corey Lewandowski.
Speaking an hour before Gabbard appeared on Capitol Hill, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News that leaks were being actively investigated and the president would be watching Gabbard’s hearing with interest.
“We look forward to watching the director’s hearings today,” she said.
Asked later by reporters if Gabbard’s job was now in jeopardy, Leavitt was less than emphatic.
“Not to my knowledge,” she said. “I haven’t heard the president say that… but obviously that’s a question for him.”
The comments set the scene for a highly scrutinized grilling, in which Gabbard, looking uncomfortable at times, gave mixed messages about the state of Iran’s nuclear program before the war began.
According to a written statement published before the hearing, Gabbard was also expected to say that the Iranians had made “no efforts” since the U.S. bombing of their nuclear facilities last year “to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.”
This appeared to undercut the president, who has cited Iran’s nuclear program as one of the objectives for the war.
But when Gabbard read out the statement on Wednesday, she left out these remarks, prompting Democrat Mark Warner to accuse her of trying to “omit the parts that contradict the president.”
She tried to explain that “the time was running long,” so she decided to leave out portions of her original statement.
Questions about Iran’s imminent threat also proved difficult.
“You’ve stated today that the intelligence community’s assessment is that Iran’s nuclear program was obliterated and there have been ‘no efforts since then to try to build their enrichment capability,” Ossoff told her.
“Was it the intelligence community’s assessment that, nevertheless, despite this obliteration, there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or No?”
Gabbard again tried to sidestep the question. “It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and what is not an imminent threat.”
CNN intelligence analyst Andrew McCabe, a former FBI deputy director, rejected this assertion.
“It’s absolutely her job to be the spokesman of the intelligence community, to synthesize all of the collection (of intelligence agencies) and present that to the president,” he told the network.
Gabbard did, however, throw doubt on Trump’s claim that Iran’s retaliation over the war came as a “shock” to the administration.
Asked whether Trump was advised that Iran would inevitably strike back against neighboring Gulf states—where many U.S. expats and army bases are located—Gabbard replied: “Those of us in the intelligence community continue to provide the president with all of the objective intelligence available.”
Pressed further on whether Trump was briefed that Iran would seek to block the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil choke point, she told the committee: “This has long been an assessment of the IC (Intelligence Community) that Iran would likely hold the Strait of Hormuz hostage.”
