Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
In a move that echoes past clashes with U.S. intelligence agencies, President Donald Trump publicly contradicted his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, by claiming Iran is “very close” to building a nuclear weapon — a stance at odds with recent U.S. intelligence assessments.
“I don’t care what she said,” Trump told reporters during an overnight return from the G7 summit, dismissing Gabbard’s March testimony that Iran is not currently pursuing a nuclear weapon and that its supreme leader has not reauthorized the long-dormant program.
Trump’s comments appeared more in sync with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long warned of an imminent nuclear threat from Iran. Trump convened a high-level national security meeting Tuesday in the White House Situation Room to discuss next steps amid rising tensions in the Middle East.
Gabbard Defends Her Record, Denies Rift
Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman and military veteran who joined Trump’s administration earlier this year, pushed back against claims of a rift, telling CNN:
“President Trump was saying the same thing that I said. We are on the same page.”
But her March testimony to Congress told a different story. Gabbard testified that intelligence agencies “continue to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon” and that the U.S. was monitoring its record-high uranium stockpile closely.
Intel Officials Caution Against Alarmism
Two senior administration officials, speaking anonymously, said Trump’s concerns stem from Iran’s unprecedented levels of uranium enrichment, which they say put the country “as close to a nuclear weapon as it can be without actually having one.” However, no clear evidence shows that Iran has restarted bomb development.
Gen. Erik Kurilla, head of U.S. Central Command, recently testified that Iran could produce enough nuclear material for 10 bombs in three weeks — but added that assembly and weaponization would take additional time.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), a top member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said there has been no recent intelligence to contradict Gabbard’s March statement.
“Director Gabbard stated publicly in March that the Iranians were not actively pursuing a bomb. I’ve seen nothing that changes that,” Warner said Tuesday.
Controversy Over Immigration Intelligence Deepens
The Iran dispute isn’t the only sign of tension between Trump and his intelligence chief. Gabbard has come under fire for firing two senior intelligence officers who challenged Trump’s use of a 1798-era law to deport Venezuelan migrants. Trump claimed they were part of the Tren de Aragua gang, working in tandem with the Venezuelan regime — a claim refuted by U.S. intelligence in April.
The White House defended the firings, releasing a statement from Gabbard that blamed “deep state actors” for “attacking the President’s successful policies.”
“President Trump took necessary and historic action to safeguard our nation,” the statement read, claiming that removing Tren de Aragua members made America safer, despite intelligence to the contrary.
Background: A Fragile Alliance
Trump’s appointment of Gabbard surprised many. A former Democrat who left her party in 2022 and endorsed Trumpin 2024, she had limited intelligence experience before becoming director. She was narrowly confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate, with critics citing her lack of qualifications and populist rhetoric.
Though she has publicly echoed Trump’s talking points, the split over Iran highlights the fragile and transactional nature of their alliance — one where loyalty often outweighs facts.
What’s Next?
The divergence over Iran could influence Trump’s next foreign policy steps as tensions with Tehran and Hezbollah increase. Meanwhile, critics warn that sidelining intelligence professionals for political expediency risks weakening national security assessments in moments of crisis.
Whether Trump continues to bypass his top intelligence chief remains to be seen — but the episode underscores an administration increasingly driven by ideology rather than evidence.
