President Trump was angry.
Earlier this month, Tulsi Gabbard, his director of national intelligence, had posted a three-and-half-minute video to social media describing her visit to Hiroshima, Japan, and outlining the horrors caused by the detonation of a nuclear weapon there 80 years ago.
Speaking directly to the camera, Ms. Gabbard warned that the threat of nuclear war remained. “As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before,” she said, “political elites and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tension between nuclear powers.”
Mr. Trump berated Ms. Gabbard for the video, according to two people briefed on the conversation. He said that her discussion of nuclear annihilation would scare people and that officials should not talk about it.
Mr. Trump’s displeasure with the video laid bare months of his skepticism of Ms. Gabbard and frustrations with her. The president and some administration officials viewed her overseas travel, as the video exemplified, as being as much about self-promotion of her political career as it was about the business of government, multiple officials said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics of the administration.
But the tensions surrounding Ms. Gabbard are now in the open, as Mr. Trump considers mounting a military strike on Iran. Ms. Gabbard, a critic of overseas entanglements, has privately raised concerns of a wider war. And Mr. Trump publicly belittled her for her testimony in March that Iran had not decided to build a nuclear weapon.
After the video was posted, the president also told Ms. Gabbard that he was disappointed in her, and wished she had used better judgment, according to one of the two people briefed on the conversation. He told Ms. Gabbard that he believed she was using her time working for him to set herself up for higher office. Mr. Trump told Ms. Gabbard that if she wanted to run for president, she should not be in the administration, one of the people briefed on the meeting said.
While Ms. Gabbard is a former Democrat, her credentials as a critic of America’s long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and as a skeptic of foreign military interventions appeal to Mr. Trump’s base, and her views dovetail with those of some of his other advisers. Her supporters are openly advocating that the president keep her.
“The president needs someone who will give him the right intelligence information, whether he likes it or not,” said Daniel L. Davis, an analyst at the think tank Defense Priorities, which advocates a restrained foreign policy. “If you put someone else in there, they might only tell him what he wants to hear.”
Mr. Davis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, was Ms. Gabbard’s choice for a top intelligence role before criticism from Republicans over his skepticism of Israel’s war in Gaza forced her to rescind the appointment.
There is no question, officials said, that Ms. Gabbard’s standing has been weakened and that she is embattled. But few in the administration want to see her depart. Some say she has people who like her, while others worry about who might replace her. Two officials said that Mr. Trump’s anger over the video had faded and that they were back on better terms.
Ms. Gabbard continues to brief the president regularly and speaks often to John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, who held Ms. Gabbard’s job in the first Trump administration, according to multiple officials.
In a statement, the White House press office dismissed any notion she has been sidelined. Steven Cheung, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Trump had “full confidence” in his national security team. “D.N.I. Gabbard is an important member of the president’s team and her work continues to serve him and this country well,” Mr. Cheung said.
Ms. Gabbard was an aggressive supporter of Mr. Trump on the 2024 campaign trail. He and his top advisers valued her input, especially when Mr. Trump was preparing to debate Vice President Kamala Harris — whom Ms. Gabbard had memorably attacked in a Democratic primary debate in 2019.
After the election, Mr. Trump quickly decided to nominate her for director of national intelligence. But from the beginning he made clear to associates that he harbored some doubts. Mr. Trump, according to associates, saw her as overly interested in her own success.
Mr. Trump drew a contrast between Ms. Gabbard and the other former Democrat he named to his cabinet, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
“Bobby’s a star,” Mr. Trump told one associate. “Tulsi? Tulsi wants to be a star.” Mr. Trump’s implication was that unlike Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Gabbard did not have what it took to succeed in politics.
And soon after her swearing-in, he began to complain about her effectiveness.
At the same time, Mr. Trump — long mistrustful of the intelligence community — questioned whether there needed to be an Office of the Director of National Intelligence at all.
A senior intelligence official said Ms. Gabbard had overseen a 25 percent cut in the size of her office. And Ms. Gabbard has repeatedly told people in the White House that she is willing to be the last director of national intelligence, according to an official. The office, Ms. Gabbard said, could be reabsorbed into the C.I.A., or become something akin to the National Security Council, a bare-bones oversight group.
At least for a time, the kind of foreign policy restraint Ms. Gabbard favors appeared to gain traction this spring.
In White House discussions about Israel and Iran, Ms. Gabbard raised the range of possible consequences of an Israeli strike against Iran, saying it could trigger a wider conflict that brought in the United States. Vice President JD Vance, at times also a skeptic of military intervention, made similar arguments and was among those who supported Mr. Trump’s impulse to initially try to negotiate a deal with Iran.
As the C.I.A. delivered intelligence reports that Israel intended to strike Iran regardless, Mr. Trump and senior aides became more publicly supportive of the Israeli campaign.
Ms. Gabbard did not attend a key meeting at Camp David, where Mr. Ratcliffe presented assessments about Iran’s nuclear program. Ms. Gabbard, according to officials, was on Army Reserve duty. Other people with knowledge of the matter have said she was not invited. (Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Ms. Gabbard had met daily with Mr. Trump and his team.)
Then on Tuesday, Mr. Trump contradicted Ms. Gabbard in public. After the Israeli strikes began, a journalist on Air Force One asked Mr. Trump about Ms. Gabbard’s testimony in March that Iran had not decided to make a nuclear bomb.
“I don’t care what she said,” Mr. Trump said. “I think they were very close to having it.”
An official from Ms. Gabbard’s office said her position was not at odds with Mr. Trump’s. In her testimony, Ms. Gabbard reported the consensus opinion of the intelligence community: that Iran’s supreme leader had not authorized the country to build a nuclear weapon. But Ms. Gabbard had also noted Iran’s large stocks of enriched uranium and a shift in tone that was “likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decision-making apparatus.”
But Mr. Trump’s Air Force One remark came off as a rebuke.
To a certain extent, some officials said, courting Mr. Trump’s displeasure is a hazard of any intelligence job in his administration.
Mr. Trump believes the intelligence community undermined him in his first term, and his long-held skepticism that it is part of a disloyal deep state continues. Ms. Gabbard, when briefing Mr. Trump, presents a range of options and assessments. But it is difficult to talk about the findings of spy agencies and not raise Mr. Trump’s ire, the official said.
Ms. Gabbard’s most important job as director of national intelligence is overseeing, and delivering, the president’s daily intelligence brief. But the brief is actually produced a few miles from her office at the C.I.A., and many of those working on the document are detailed from the agency. Ms. Gabbard announced internally last month that she would physically move the production of the brief to her headquarters, known as Liberty Crossing.
Within the administration, several senior officials saw it as a way to try to enhance her own relevance at a time when Mr. Trump was questioning the relevance of the office. Others said it was an expensive decision that would be logistically difficult to carry out.
Ultimately, the White House put the move on pause, according to multiple people briefed on the matter.
Ms. Gabbard has influential defenders inside and outside the government. Mr. Vance, seen as the most senior voice for a less hawkish, more restrained foreign policy, issued a long social media post defending the administration’s support of Israel’s attack on Iran. He added to that a message supporting Ms. Gabbard. He also released a statement calling her a “patriot.”
Her supporters insist that she remains relevant and that, over time, her skepticism of American intervention in Ukraine and caution on military action against Iran will once more prevail. The possible delay of any decision by Mr. Trump to strike Iran represents an opportunity for diplomacy and critics of American military intervention to make the case for restraint, some of Ms. Gabbard’s supporters said.
Olivia C. Coleman, a spokeswoman for Ms. Gabbard’s office, dismissed the reports of dissatisfaction or tensions with the White House as “lies made up by bored, irrelevant anonymous sources with nothing better to do than sow fake division.”
“The director,” Ms. Coleman said, “remains focused on her mission: providing accurate and actionable intelligence to the president, cleaning up the deep state and keeping the American people safe, secure and free.”
Julian E. Barnes covers the U.S. intelligence agencies and international security matters for The Times. He has written about security issues for more than two decades.
Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent for The Times, reporting on President Trump.
Jonathan Swan is a White House reporter for The Times, covering the administration of Donald J. Trump. Contact him securely on Signal: @jonathan.941
The post Trump’s Rebuke of Gabbard Signals an Uneasy Moment appeared first on New York Times.
