Some individuals within President Donald Trump’s circle are speculating that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has placed herself “in the line of fire” as he seeks to identify the party responsible for leaking classified U.S. intelligence regarding the bombs deployed in Iran.
The days of intense opposition to reports from CNN and the New York Times indicate that Trump is more furious than usual about the leak of a study asserting that a dozen 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs failed to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. He has directed blame towards members of Congress and asserted that the White House will reduce the frequency of briefings on military operations.
Sources who communicated with the Daily Mail have indicated that Trump’s fixation on Gabbard suggests that some individuals he once trusted may be involved.
Gabbard was excluded from a briefing to Congress regarding the attack. According to Trump officials, she will not be present on Thursday when representatives present evidence that Operation Midnight Hammer led to the “total obliteration” of Iran’s three nuclear facilities.
Gabbard was meant to attend the briefing alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
“In the narrative of Trump, it is always crucial to identify who to blame. There must always be someone to hold accountable. Tulsi is currently in the line of fire,” remarked Trump biographer Michael Wolff concerning Gabbard’s situation.
Wolff further stated: “An investigation is underway. They will attempt to assign blame. As of this morning, within the White House and the West Wing, the individual being targeted is Tulsi.”
Despite Wolff’s evaluation of Gabbard’s circumstances, a source within the administration informed the outlet that the media is “misrepresenting the situation.”
Possibly perceiving a threat to her professional prospects, Gabbard defended Trump, Rubio, and Hegseth while countering the CNN article and criticizing journalists such as Kaitlan Collins for their disrespect towards American troops in their coverage.
“Recent intelligence corroborates what @POTUS has reiterated on multiple occasions: Iran’s nuclear facilities have been obliterated,” she stated on social media.
“Should the Iranians decide to reconstruct, they would need to entirely rebuild all three facilities (Natanz, Fordow, Esfahan), which would likely require several years to accomplish.”
In a statement, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung supported Gabbard when questioned about the leak.
“President Trump has complete confidence in his entire outstanding national security team,” he told the Daily Mail. “DNI Gabbard is a vital member of the President’s team, and her contributions continue to benefit him and this nation significantly.”
President Trump addressed reporters on Friday when he publicly criticized Gabbard for asserting that U.S. intelligence “continues to evaluate that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon.”
When pressed by a reporter for a response, Trump stated, “She is incorrect.”
Later that day, Gabbard took to social media to respond, similarly criticizing the media.
“The deceitful media is deliberately distorting my testimony and disseminating false information to create division,” she wrote.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force General Dan Caine are currently holding a press conference at the Pentagon. I will provide any news updates here.
General Dan Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that on Monday morning, they received “indications and warnings that Iran was planning to attack US bases in the region” and subsequently evacuated most of their personnel.
“I would like to share some of the assessments provided. Regardless of whether it is fake news, CNN, MSNBC, or the New York Times, there has been excessive praise for the preliminary assessment. I have not yet had the opportunity to review it, but every outlet has reported on the preliminary assessment from the DIA. I am currently examining it; it is preliminary, and a day and a half after the actual strike, it acknowledges that it requires 82 weeks to gather the necessary data, it is preliminary,” Hegseth remarked.
“It highlights that it is not coordinated with the intelligence community whatsoever, there is a low level of confidence in this report, there are gaps in the information, and it states that multiple critical assumptions underpin this report, which means that your entire premise is based on a critical point. If that point is incorrect, everything else is flawed. This report concedes the likelihood of significant damage. It was leaked because someone had an agenda to obscure the facts and portray this historic strike as unsuccessful. We will hear from the chairman shortly, who will outline the specifics for you based on his extensive military experience,” Hegseth concluded.
