News Details

Donald Trump has privately asked cabinet members in recent weeks whether he should replace his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, venting frustration that she shielded a former deputy who undercut his rationale for war with Iran, according to two people briefed on the discussions. It is not clear that Trump will actually fire Gabbard over the episode. Currently, there is no standout candidate to take the job, and advisers have cautioned that creating a high-profile vacancy before a successor is ready could cause unhelpful political distractions. Trump’s discussions mark an ominous development for Gabbard, given the president tends to poll his advisers when he starts to seriously consider whether a personnel change is necessary. The two people spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. Trump’s doubts about Gabbard followed her testimony at the worldwide threats hearing on Capitol Hill last month, where she declined to condemn Joe Kent, who had resigned days earlier after arguing that Iran did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. Trump expressed particular frustration about Gabbard seemingly defending Kent and appearing reluctant to defend the administration’s position to attack Iran. Asked on Sunday whether he still had confidence in Gabbard’s leadership, Trump offered a mixed endorsement: “Yeah, sure,” he told reporters aboard Air Force One. “I mean, she’s a little bit different in her thought process than me, but that doesn’t make somebody not available to serve.” In a statement, the White House spokesperson Steven Cheung defended Gabbard’s tenure, stating: “As President Trump just said in his remarks, he has confidence in Director Gabbard and the tireless work she is doing. He has assembled the most talented and impactful cabinet ever, and they have collectively delivered historic victories on behalf of the American people.” During his second term, Trump has been averse to firing anyone outright, often moving officials he perceives as liabilities to other roles. Most recently, he demoted Kristi Noem from homeland security secretary to a lesser role as an envoy within the State Department. There is a general recognition in the administration that Gabbard often faces thankless tasks and has struggled to find her lane as the director of national intelligence, a role traditionally involving oversight of US intelligence agencies and their competing factions. Gabbard’s testimony frustrated Trump further, aligning with her longstanding criticism of US entanglement in foreign wars and her 2019 statements to Congress that the president could not legally order preemptive attacks. Her testimony also included remarks workshopped with the CIA before the hearings, according to a person familiar with the matter. Gabbard spent nearly every day at the White House supporting the Iran war effort. She has won Trump’s favor in other moments, such as producing an official report asserting that Russia had not sought to boost Trump’s campaign in 2016 at the expense of Hillary Clinton—a conclusion not shared by congressional investigations at the time. Olivia Coleman, a spokesperson for Gabbard, said in a statement: “Over the past two weeks, President Trump said both that he has confidence in the DNI and that she did well at her hearings before Congress. She remains committed to fulfilling the responsibilities the president placed in her.” However, Gabbard has also accumulated a list of perceived transgressions, according to current and former officials. As early as last June, Trump became irritated by a video Gabbard recorded warning about the horrors of nuclear war after a visit to Hiroshima. Trump felt the video would scare people and that she should not speak in unnecessarily graphic terms. Weeks later, Trump publicly contradicted Gabbard after she testified to lawmakers that Iran had not decided to build a nuclear bomb. Trump then authorized strikes on Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz. Gabbard became the target of White House officials’ ire after she revoked the security clearances of 37 people, including congressional aides, before the West Wing had verified their eligibility. In the fallout, Gabbard’s allies accused the CIA of manufacturing a pretext to bring about her ouster, until the White House mediated a truce.