On March 25, 2025, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified at the annual SSCI (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) hearing for the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community. In that hearing Gabbard said the following regarding Iran (bold added for emphasis):
The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003. The IC is closely monitoring if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program. In the past year, we have seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus. Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.
Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel and press for a U.S. military withdrawal from the region by aiding, arming, and helping to reconstitute its loose consortium of like-minded terrorist and militant actors, which it refers to as its "Axis of Resistance." Although weakened, this collection of actors still presents a wide range of threats, including to Israel's population, U.S. forces deployed in Iraq and Syria, and to U.S. and international military and commercial shipping and transit.
Source:
Gabbard, Tulsi. (March 25, 2025). "DNI Gabbard Opening Statement for the SSCI As Prepared on the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community". dni.gov. Retrieved 2025-06-24.
On June 20, 2025 Gabbard posted the following on X (bold added for emphasis):
The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division. America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree.
Gabbard's post is in response to recent media reports such as an article published by The Daily Beast which states that "Tulsi Gabbard has flipped her stance on Iran." By "flipped" the article means that Gabbard previously stated that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that its leader had not reauthorized its nuclear weapons program, and that now (in her post on X) she is saying the opposite.
Source:
Gabbard, Tulsi. (June 20, 2025). "Tulsi Gabbard | X". X. Retrieved 2025-06-24.
Derra Adolphus, Emell. (June 21, 2025). "Tulsi Gabbard Flips Sides in MAGA Civil War Over Iran's Nuclear Capabilities". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2025-06-24.
Commentary:
The first sentence of Gabbard's post on X states:
The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division.
That's quite a statement, and it's putting a lot of blame on "dishonest media."
The first two sentences of Gabbard's March 25, 2025 SSCI hearing testimony regarding Iran state:
The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003. The IC is closely monitoring if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.
Read that first sentence again. The way I interpret that sentence, according to ongoing IC (Intelligence Community) assessment, Iran is NOT building a nuclear weapon, and Iran has NOT reauthorized it's nuclear weapons program.
That's the way it reads.
I think that the overwhelming majority of people with a high-school diploma would come to the same conclusion after reading that sentence.
If Gabbard had used the phrase "whether or not" instead of the word "that," then the meaning would be that the IC doesn't know for sure, and that it is still assessing the situation.
If Gabbard had left the two "not" words out, then it would be clear that the IC believes that Iran IS building and reauthorizing. Maybe that's what Gabbard meant. But that's not what she said.
Words matter, and if you're the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, you damn well better say what you mean. And when you say something you didn't mean, you damn well better be willing to admit that your choice of words was incorrect.
But Gabbard chose a different response. She chose to "double-down."
Gabbard chose to make a ridiculous "out of context" claim. Out of context how?
No, nothing was taken "out of context."
Then Gabbard goes on to say that the "dishonest media" is "spreading fake news."
NO, the honest media was simply reporting what she said. Period!
Then Gabbard throws in yet another barb saying that the "dishonest media" is trying to "manufacture division."
WOW! Talk about making up a bunch of B.S.! This is exactly the kind of thing Trump would say. And this is all because Gabbard apparently didn't say what she meant at the SSCI hearing.
All she had to do was admit she didn't say exactly what she meant at the hearing, and that would have been the end of it.
You might wonder why I bothered to spend the time to write this post. I mean, this is just one example of a Trump-selected sycophant doing her best to "save face" and not give in, even the slightest, to the other "side," right?
Well, zooming out from Tulsi Gabbard, this is a subtle reminder of the hyper political division in our country and the utter hatred for the other "side."
The hatred and vitriol is so bad that a high-ranking U.S. government official can't even admit that maybe she made a mistake.
God help us all, because we need it now, more than ever before.