Tulsi Gabbard contradicted Trump on Iran nuclear threat assessment

In March 2025, during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence in the Trump administration, stated that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. This assertion directly contradicted claims made by Israeli officials, who insisted that Iran was rapidly advancing towards developing a nuclear bomb. Consequently, President Donald Trump dismissed Gabbard's testimony during an Air Force One press conference, asserting that he believed Iran was "very close" to acquiring nuclear capabilities. He further remarked, "I don't care what she said," displaying his dismissive stance towards Gabbard's statements. The situation drew significant attention amid rising tensions surrounding Israel-Iran relations, with speculations of potential military action in the air. Gabbard's comments seemed to put her at odds with other administration members, particularly more hawkish officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The confusion over Gabbard’s stance on Iran's nuclear ambitions raised questions about her role and effectiveness as DNI, as certain officials within the administration expressed concerns regarding her grasp of the job. In response to the controversy, JD Vance, the Vice President, defended Gabbard, labeling her as a loyal ally and crucial part of Trump’s coalition, despite Trump expressing doubts about her credibility on the matter. Vance reassured the media that Gabbard was an essential member of the team and aligned with Trump’s broader goals. However, reports indicated that questions persisted over whether Gabbard was fully seizing her role within the intelligence community while facing skepticism from both allies and critics. The President's apparent disregard for his DNI’s assessment of Iran indicated a larger conflict between non-interventionist views held by Vance and Gabbard and the more aggressive foreign policy approach embraced by other Trump administration officials. Both Vance and Gabbard had historically advocated for a restrained and careful U.S. military involvement overseas, countering the more interventionist sentiments present within the administration. As events unfold, experts continue to monitor how this internal dynamic might affect U.S. foreign policy and national security strategy moving forward.