“I have never attended a significant, cabinet-level briefing that was classified, and the National Security Director was barred from entering the venue,” said Chris Murphy, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a Democrat, during a television program.
On June 26th local time, Trump’s national security team reported to the Senate about their decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. This briefing was held after the White House had harshly condemned a preliminary assessment report by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Trump claimed that the US’s strike “completely destroyed” three critical Iranian nuclear sites, but the leaked report suggested that the impact of the US’s strike on Iranian nuclear facilities might be limited. After the briefing, senators remained divided over the damage caused by the Iranian attack: Republicans described the action as a significant success, while Democrats expressed deep skepticism.
The absence of National Security Director Tulsidaq Gabbard at this important briefing raised suspicions. Murphy believes that Gabbard’s exclusion from the meeting was due to her differing stance on the US’s actions against Iran, not aligning with Trump’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. “They were clear she wouldn’t cooperate with official statements; she would likely refuse to say what the government wanted to hear, that the (Iranian) plan had been completely destroyed.”
At the outset of the current conflict in Iran, Trump had already diverged with Gabbard. As Gabbard was once again marginalized on the most crucial national security issue, there were speculations that she might have completely lost Trump’s trust.
On March 25th local time, Gabbard testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on the “Global Threats” hearing and appeared in person. Photo/Visual China
By the end of March, Gabbard reported to Congress on the consensus within the intelligence system: Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has not authorized the restart of his nuclear weapons program, which was suspended in 2003.
She also pointed out that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium has reached a historical peak, and there is an increasing internal support for nuclear weapons in Iran. However, overall, Gabbard’s conclusion was very clear: there is no evidence to suggest that Iran is developing nuclear bombs. After the United States attacked Iranian nuclear facilities, an informed official told The Atlantic Monthly that the intelligence system has not changed this assessment.
However, when asked about Gabbard’s testimony, Trump publicly undermined his chief intelligence advisor. On June 16, during the G7 summit, returning from Canada on a plane, Trump openly expressed his anger: “I don’t care what she said. I think they are very close to having nuclear weapons.” On June 20, Trump even directly told the media: “She was wrong.”
Such open disrespect for cabinet officials is rare in Trump’s second term. The reason for Trump’s harshness towards Gabbard goes beyond her testimony.
On June 10, Gabbard posted a three-and-a-half-minute video on social media reflecting on the Hiroshima atomic bombings. She looked directly into the camera and warned, “Political elites and war traffickers” are “indifferently stoking fears and tensions between nuclear powers,” and the world is “on the brink of nuclear annihilation.” This well-made video showcased recent footage of Gabbard visiting Hiroshima, and it simulated a scenario where the US would be hit by a nuclear bomb using comic book illustrations, one depicting the mushroom cloud over San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge.
Just two days before this video was released, senior U.S. national security officials held a meeting at Camp David to discuss plans for Israel to attack Iran. The attendees included Defense Secretary Mattis, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Coats, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
It was unusual that the president’s top intelligence advisor was excluded from such a critical meeting. The speculation was that Gabard recorded the video as a subtle protest against what was about to happen. On June 12, Israel launched an attack on Iran.
Gabbard’s video caused Trump to lose his temper. “The New York Times” quoted insiders saying that Trump had scolded Gabard at a meeting, accusing her of being negative and scaring the public. According to “The Atlantic Monthly,” Gabard responded calmly, simply saying, “Yes, sir.”
By June 30, Gabard had not deleted the video.
After two public disparagesment by Trump in late June, Gabard changed her stance. She issued a public statement claiming that Iran might produce nuclear weapons within weeks and stated that she aligned with Trump’s position. She did not provide any new intelligence to support this claim but instead accused the media of distorting her earlier testimony. Analysts in the intelligence community generally believed that Gabard’s shift in rhetoric was merely to appeal to Trump, rather than because there were new findings by the intelligence agencies. This severely damaged Gabard’s reputation within the intelligence system.
Following Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, Gabard praised him for making “a great effort.” Later, she claimed new intelligence showed that Iranian nuclear facilities had been destroyed, thereby delaying the country’s nuclear program several years.
This conclusion contradicted the preliminary assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The leaked assessment report indicated that the core facilities of Iran’s nuclear program had not been destroyed, and the airstrike only delayed progress by a few months, not years.
Despite the DIA pointing out that this was just a preliminary, “low-credibility” report and not a final conclusion, the less optimistic assessment was exposed by the media and triggered a fierce reaction from the Trump administration.
Trump slammed the media for evaluating the assessment as “traitors,” while Defense Secretary Hugh Gallagher insisted that the strike against Iran was a “decisive success,” accusing the media of “distorting facts and smearing the president.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also stated that significant material damage had been inflicted on Iranian nuclear facilities, and he threatened to investigate how the report was leaked.
Even though Kabulis joined the defense team, she could not regain Trump’s trust. According to media reports, she had planned to attend a confidential briefing on Iran at the Capitol, but the White House ultimately did not invite her.
“I want to know why she (Kabulis) is still there. By now, even if she hasn’t been fired, she should have resigned voluntarily. She clearly isn’t trusted,” said Gregory Trevett, former chairman of the National Intelligence Council, during a podcast.
However, supporters of Kabulis argued that Trump should continue to keep her in the government. Daniel Davis, a senior fellow at the think tank “Defense Priorities,” pointed out that Kabulis has long been committed to “avoiding another terrible war where America cannot win or escape.” In Davis’s view, Trump needs someone who can “provide the right intelligence information,” and if it were someone else, they might only say what Trump wants to hear. Kabulis had appointed Davis to a high-ranking position within the National Intelligence Directorate. However, his criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza caused controversy within the Republican Party. Eventually, Kabulis had to withdraw this appointment.
Faced with external doubts, the White House denied any conflict between Trump and Kabulis, insisting that Trump has full confidence in his national security team. CNN quoted a senior White House official saying that Trump is cautious about firing anyone. “He doesn’t want to fire her because she hasn’t caused any harm.”