‘I don’t care what she said’: Trump dismisses Tulsi Gabbard led US intel report on Iran’s nuclear program
Former U.S. President Donald Trump has stirred controversy by rejecting a recent intelligence report on Iran’s nuclear activities. The report, led by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, found no signs of an active weapons program. Trump, however, dismissed it with a blunt statement: “I don’t care what she said.”
Gabbard’s Findings: Iran Not Building a Bomb
In early 2025, Tulsi Gabbard assumed the role of Director of National Intelligence. She recently briefed Congress on Iran’s nuclear program. Her assessment stated that Iran continues to enrich uranium but has not resumed building a nuclear weapon. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the program’s return, the report said.
Gabbard estimated that if Iran restarted its efforts now, it would still take two to three years to develop a deliverable weapon. This view matches findings from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which also sees no clear sign of an active weapons program.
Trump’s Rejection: Rhetoric vs. Reality
Trump, speaking aboard his campaign plane, pushed back. He said, “I’ve seen things. Iran is not just close; they’re almost there.” His remarks followed a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel claims Iran is hiding a secret nuclear program.
This is not the first time Trump has disagreed with U.S. intelligence. But dismissing a report from Gabbard—whom he appointed—has drawn wide attention. His approach seems to rely more on political instinct than evidence.
Gabbard Responds: “Facts, Not Politics”
Gabbard addressed Trump’s comments during a press briefing. “Our job is to provide facts, not politics,” she said. “The President can have his opinions, but they should not override evidence.”
She assured Congress that her report is free from political pressure. Some intelligence officials, speaking anonymously, said they worry Trump’s stance may damage future briefings’ credibility.
Politics in Play
Trump’s firm position on Iran may be part of his political strategy. With the 2026 elections approaching, he’s signaling a tough foreign policy stance. He has called for renewed sanctions and hinted at military action if Iran doesn’t meet U.S. demands.
This rhetoric appeals to voters concerned about national security. But it risks undermining expert assessments from intelligence agencies and international monitors.
Israel’s Role: Tension and Trust
Israel’s influence on the issue is significant. Prime Minister Netanyahu claims to have intelligence proving Iran is working on a bomb. He shared documents and satellite images with U.S. officials.
Gabbard confirmed that the intelligence community reviewed Israel’s evidence. “We respect our partners and examine every lead,” she said. “However, the broader data we collect does not support that conclusion.”
Congress Reacts: Division and Demand for Clarity
Lawmakers are split. Some Republicans support Trump and want Gabbard to revise her findings. Others argue that U.S. policy should rely on clear and verified intelligence.
Senator Chris Murphy warned against ignoring official assessments. “This isn’t just a disagreement. It’s a dangerous dismissal of facts,” he said. Meanwhile, Senator Tom Cotton said it’s better to assume the worst than risk being wrong.
Several members of Congress are calling for open hearings to review both the U.S. and Israeli intelligence. They want the public to understand the real threat level.
Intelligence vs. Politics: A Familiar Battle
The clash between Trump and Gabbard reflects a larger trend. Intelligence agencies offer data and cautious analysis. Politicians, especially in campaign mode, often favor bold claims and emotional appeals.
If Iran does pursue a nuclear weapon, the U.S. must respond wisely. But making decisions based on unverified threats could lead to unnecessary conflict.
Conclusion: Two Stories, One Risk
Trump and Gabbard now tell very different stories about Iran. One is based on detailed intelligence. The other relies on political instinct and foreign claims.
Their conflict raises serious questions. Can intelligence agencies provide honest advice if leaders ignore it? Will future policies be guided by facts or fears?
As the debate continues, one thing is clear: how the U.S. handles this issue may shape its role in the Middle East for years to come.
