Posted on 06/23/2025 7:58:41 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Where is Tulsi Gabbard? The country’s Director of National Intelligence has been glaringly absent as the biggest national security story in years continues to develop. In both the lead-up to and the aftermath of President Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, Gabbard has barely been seen, or heard. It’s a strange time for the chief of the US intelligence community to go silent, leading to a growing number of questions that Americans – particularly MAGA Americans – would like answered.
It’s Gabbard’s now-infamous testimony to Congress in March – and a video posted to social media earlier this month – that are thought to have sidelined her from the Trump administration in recent weeks. Three months ago, Gabbard reported to Congress that while Iran was enriching disproportionately high levels of uranium, the intelligence community did not believe the country was currently in the process of building a nuclear weapon. It’s the latter part of her testimony that has proved controversial in recent weeks, as the President and his team insisted Iran was indeed just weeks away from producing a nuclear bomb. The assumption now is that Gabbard must be directly opposed to the decision made by the White House to strike Iran’s nuclear sites – a suspicion bolstered by the video put out by Gabbard on June 10, lamenting how “political elite and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers.”
But the conversations between Gabbard and the White House have been more nuanced than many reports suggest. Despite initial reports that the DNI was not invited to a key Camp David meeting to discuss Iran earlier this month, an invitation was extended to Gabbard, who had an outstanding commitment due to her ongoing position in the National Guard. She was also in the Situation Room on June 21 when the decision to strike Iran was made – though no evidence of her attendance was shared by the White House on Saturday, when officials released photos of the meeting after the President’s address to the nation. The “Official Rapid Response” account released a photo of Gabbard at the meeting only yesterday evening, which appeared amidst growing speculation that she had not been invited to attend.
That’s not a great place for either Gabbard or Team Trump to be in. For Gabbard, it increasingly seems like her position on the Iran strikes is irreconcilable with the President’s, when this is not necessarily the case. (There is already a vulnerability in the relationship, as Gabbard is a recent convert to the Republican party (even more recent than Trump)). Gabbard’s job is to represent the view of the intelligence community, which her testimony in March presumably did. That does not mean that Iran’s advancements necessarily sat comfortably with her – a point insiders close to Gabbard are keen to stress. Gabbard, however, is not able to express this herself. The White House has empowered Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to take the lead on broadcast. Gabbard is not currently on the list.
So what we are learning about the DNI’s position has been coming from her colleagues instead. She was “wrong,” according to Trump, in her testimony to Congress in March. She’s a “critical part of the coalition” according to Vance, who has come to the defense of Gabbard this weekend – not wholly surprising given they share similar skepticism for intervention. But the Vice President’s interventions do suggest there is an internal battle taking place over the future, not just of Gabbard’s position, but for the direction of US foreign policy. I understand Gabbard is not currently planning to resign, despite the public disagreement between her and the President on her testimony. But the hawks who tried to stop her nomination from advancing earlier this year have certainly sensed an opportunity for personnel change. Moreover, there is an inevitable expiration date on how long the Director of National Intelligence cannot speak on the biggest national-security issue of the day.
This might seem like a bigger problem for Gabbard than the President, but the longer Trump seems distant from Gabbard, the bigger the problem becomes with his base. The decision to strike Iran remains hugely contentious within the MAGA movement – not least because Trump made peace a top campaign promise. And Gabbard became one of the biggest symbols for that promise in his administration. Were she to go, Trump would have a credibility problem with MAGA – and there is no early indication they will let him get away with it.
Perhaps Trump can stomach the MAGA outrage, no longer worried about facing reelection. But Vance’s comments, in defense of Gabbard, suggest he is acutely aware of how the base is feeling, and how these strikes must be spun to keep the war-skeptics on board.
Vance and Trump can certainly make the case that “America First” required taking out Iran’s nuclear capabilities. But it would be a lot more powerful if Gabbard were out there making the case too.
>> Perhaps Trump can stomach the MAGA outrage
You flatter yourself, Katie.
There IS no “MAGA outrage”. Just you and a few like you pounding your tiny fists into your pillow and stamping your little feet.
Compare this brilliant execution to Biden’s exit from Trashcanistan.
It would be good to hear something from Tulsi, especially after the week we just experienced with Iran being bombed.
IN REHAB??
She can chant Hare Krishna.
Seriously, what a stupid article.
There is no contradiction between the IC assessment and PDJT's team's assessment.
This alleged rift between PDJT and Gabbard is a Fake News manufactured controversy.
The point, as they say, is moot.
The bombs have dropped and it doesn’t much matter what Tulsi knows or thinks. Time to move on.
Of course, if I were Tulsi I would be asking for a meeting to figure out what he was thinking…and why she was tossed under the bus.
I suspect the Iranians were removing U-235 and centrifuges from Fordow.
She would have been forced to recommend US action to prevent that.
There. Right flipping there.
If she is a real DNI, she would be calling everyone on the carpet who had input into the intelligence assessment to find out where the analytical tradecraft went wrong. The same intelligence community that allowed CIA managers and analysts to soften the China assessment that was given to the DNI at the tail end of Trump's first term.
The tiff between Gabbard and Trump may be nothing more than Trump’s annoyance that she didn’t coordinate her March testimony with Trump before hand. Trump has little patience for that. Sean Spicer recounts how he got chewed out by Trump during the first administration for saying during a press briefing “The President’s position is ....” without having cleared it with Trump first. I can’t even remember what it was that he said, but Spicer made an assumption about what the President’s position was that he hadn’t verified and which turned out to not be true.
Perhaps her testimony was a head fake to throw the Iranian mullahs off the scent.
The Iranians were not building bombs.
They were building the capacity to make bombs.
The Iranians lack the capacity to reliably deliver bombs, therefore they were simply maximizing their ability to make bombs at some future time.
Yes, there is a mystery here that merits immediate explanation, particularly in the wake of the assault.
She either lied (was part of the deception) or was lied to, or - more importantly - all intelligence is suspect. The logical question to the latter 2 is, “Why?”
Despite my support for POTUS’ decision, as I’ve commented prior: I’m having uncomfortable deja vu about all of the underlying factors of this operation...about which we’ve been delivered FAR more info (including the statement that the attack “had been planned/rehearsed for years.”).
“She either lied (was part of the deception) or was lied to, or - more importantly - all intelligence is suspect. The logical question to the latter 2 is, “Why?””
Most people have not read what she said and is in agreement with what Trump, Bibi and most analysts have claimed.
Maybe but she was just giving info from the IC which only said they had no knowledge that Iran was putting together a nuke.
Trump was simply saying they could complete the process in a couple of weeks and that is true.
When the press started to gin up this controversy Tulsi complained that no one had listened to all of her testimony, meaning the press agitators. The press ignored that and she went silent after that.
Perhaps she just figured this wasn’t a good time to entertain Fake News agitators and their BS narratives.
Iran continues to seek to expand its influence in the Middle East, despite the degradation to its proxies and defenses during the Gaza conflict. Iran has developed and maintains ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and UAVs, including systems capable of striking U.S. targets and allies in the region. They’ve shown a willingness to use these weapons, including during a 2020 attack on US forces in Iraq and in attacks against Israel in April and October 2024. Iran’s cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data. The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. We continue to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program. In the past year, we’ve seen an erosion of a decades long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decision-making apparatus. Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons. Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel and press for U.S. military withdrawal from the region by aiding, arming, and helping to reconstitute its loose consortium of like-minded terrorists, actors, which it refers to as its “Axis of Resistance.” Although weakened, this collection of actors still presents a wide range of threats including to Israel’s population, U.S. forces deployed in Iraq and Syria, as well as U.S. and international military and commercial shipping and transit.- DNI Tulsi Gabbard, opening remarks at House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, March 26, 2025.
I'm not an idiot. There was NO EXCUSE for DJT's predecessors to kick the can and this was an opportunity to act. I fully support it, but cannot qualify Gabbard's remarks.
After watching what Trump has endured to get us this far, I’d believe him over Tulsi Gabbard.
In the past year, we’ve seen an erosion of a decades long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decision-making apparatus. Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.