A defiant Tulsi Gabbard was forced onto the back foot during a high–stakes interrogation on Capitol Hill.
The Director of National Intelligence faced a blistering line of questioning from Congressman Jimmy Gomez, a Democrat, who demanded to know if she stood by her controversial claim from last year that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon.
As the room held its breath, a stone–faced Gabbard snapped back that ‘context matters’ – refusing to give a simple yes or no.
‘Context matters with that statement,’ Gabbard said. ‘Iran had all of the materials and capabilities to do so.’
Gomez asked her, ‘Were you lying or not?’
‘I stand by the intelligence community’s complete assessment,’ Gabbard responded.
It was an astounding moment, particularly because President Donald Trump cited Iran’s growing nuclear ambitions as his prerequisite for going to war with the nation nearly three weeks ago.
The tension reached a breaking point when the question was turned on CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who frostily declared, ‘She can speak for herself.’
A defiant Tulsi Gabbard was forced onto the back foot today during a high–stakes interrogation on Capitol Hill
The Director of National Intelligence faced a blistering line of questioning from Congressman Jimmy Gomez, who demanded to know if she stood by her controversial claim from last year that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon
Gabbard, an outspoken anti-war activist, kept her true feelings close to her chest during the grilling.
Notably, Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas also pushed Gabbard on whether the US and Israel’s goals are the same in the Iran war.
After a long pause, Gabbard responded, ‘I’m thinking carefully here about what can be said in this open setting versus a closed setting.’
The tension reached a breaking point when the question was turned on CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who frostily declared, ‘She can speak for herself’
Gabbard laid out two different objectives, saying Trump is focused on destroying Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities while Israel’s objectives rest more with regime change and decapitating leadership.
‘We can see through the operations that the Israeli government has been focused on disabling the Iranian leadership and taking out several members, obviously beginning with the ayatollah, the supreme leader, and they continue to focus on that,’ she said.
‘How does that differ from our goals?’ Castro said.
‘The president has stated that his objectives are to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile launching capability, their ballistic missile production capability, and their Navy, the IRGC Navy, and mine–laying capability,’ she said.
Gabbard also did not have an answer on why Israel decided to strike Iranian energy infrastructure, even though the President said that was off limits.
Gabbard found herself walking a razor–edge between her past anti–war activism and her new role as the nation’s top spy at today’s hearing.
Pressed by Rep. Ami Bera on whether she still believes ‘strikes against Iran, that don’t have congressional authorization, constitute an illegal and unconstitutional act of war,’ Gabbard refused to directly respond.
Instead, she offered a reflection on her military background, telling the committee: ‘The cost of war, weighs very heavily upon me and my colleagues here, especially for those of us who have experienced and seen the cost of war firsthand.’
Gabbard laid out two different objectives, saying Trump is focused on destroying Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities while Israel’s objectives rest more with regime change and decapitating leadership
Gabbard said she left out the portion because her remarks were running long and she was afraid of running out of time
She further claimed that her ‘own personal and political views’ have been sidelined.
‘I was asked and required by Congress and by the president in this role as the director of national intelligence, to check those views at the door to ensure that the intelligence assessments are not colored by my personal views,’ Gabbard explained.
The director also responded to questions for the first time about Joe Kent, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center who quit due to the war in Iran.
In his resignation letter, Kent accused Israel of deceiving Trump to start the war.
GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik asked Gabbard if those comments concerned her, to which Gabbard replied ‘yes.’
‘He said a lot of things in that letter,’ Gabbard said. ‘Ultimately, we have provided the president with the intelligence assessments, and the President is elected by the American people and makes his own decisions based on the information that’s available to him.’
Any sign during the committee hearing that Gabbard was breaking with the President would have risked further examination of her loyalty.
She and Vance held a private meeting with Kent about his resignation letter, the Washington Post reported.
Former director of the National Counterterrorism Center Joe Kent resigned on Tuesday in opposition to the US war on Iran
Trump and top military officials claimed the US ‘obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities in June 2025. However, Trump has also said one reason the US is at war with Iran now is because of its nuclear capabilities
Kent explosively claimed that Trump had been duped by Israel into striking Iran and accused him of reneging on his ‘America First’ campaign promise.
Speculation that Gabbard could be next swiftly followed, with the odds of her exit rocketing on prediction markets.
The likelihood of the spy chief being the next high–level departure is at 14 percent, up from 6 percent, according to Kalshi.
This showdown follows a marathon Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Wednesday, where the Iran war took center stage like today. In her testimony, Gabbard claimed the Iranian regime has been left ‘largely degraded’ by a relentless campaign of sustained strikes from the US and Israel.
The DNI’s prepared remarks revealed that since the devastating June 2025 strikes, the regime has made ‘no efforts’ to restart its nuclear enrichment program.
This annual hearing is the only open venue where lawmakers can grill the Trump officials on their performance and threat assessments.
