DNI Tulsi Gabbard draws friendly fire from Republicans for video warning of nuclear war

With a cryptic video that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard posted on X on Tuesday morning, the Democratic-congresswoman-turned-America-First-advocate reignited simmering concerns about the unorthodox intelligence chief among both her longtime detractors and some Republicans who voted to confirm her earlier this year. She obviously needs to change her meds, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Jewish Insider of Gabbard. Kennedy, like all Republicans except Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), voted to confirm Gabbard in February. 'I only saw a post that she did, which I thought was a very strange one since many people believe that, unfortunate though it was, the nuclear bomb that was dropped in World War II at Hiroshima actually saved a lot of lives, a lot of American lives,' Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) told JI of Gabbard's video. In the social media video, Gabbard describes a recent visit to Hiroshima, Japan, where she learned about the toll of the atomic bomb dropped on the city by American troops in 1945, which spurred a Japanese surrender and the end of World War II. She warned that the world faces another 'nuclear holocaust' unless people 'reject this path to nuclear war.' 'This is the reality of whats at stake, what we are facing now, because as we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elite warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers,' said Gabbard, not specifying who she was referring to by 'political elite warmongers' or which countries she may have been calling out. Gabbard's video decrying 'warmongers' prompted concern from Republicans seeking a more traditionally conservative foreign policy worldview. 'She seems to be doing her best audition to be head of the Quincy Institute,' a senior employee at a pro-Israel advocacy group said of Gabbard. One Senate Republican, speaking on condition of anonymity, questioned Gabbard's logic in raising the human toll of Hiroshima and her 'warmongers' comment. Im not sure I understand why the DNI would even need to make that point, the senator said of the Hiroshima focus, later adding: 'I dont seek nuclear war. I dont know anyone who wants nuclear war. Theres plenty of ideological diversity here, but pretty much universal opposition to that. Since taking office, Gabbard, who in 2020 was a surrogate for progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) presidential campaign, has generally been aligned with the isolationist wing of the Republican Party, which is increasingly ascendant in the Trump administration. William Ruger, the official she tapped for the high-level position that prepares the president's daily intelligence briefing, came from Koch-affiliated institutions and has called for 'American restraint' on the world stage. During her nomination battle, Gabbard faced criticism, including from some Republicans — focused in particular on a congressional trip to Syria in 2017 when she met with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, her parroting of Russian propaganda about the country's war with Ukraine and her defense of Edward Snowden, the former intelligence official who leaked classified information before fleeing the country. 'It defies belief that someone would be criticizing [President Harry] Trumans act of winning a war. We really need to get back to winning wars when we fight,' Eric Levine, a prominent Republican fundraiser in New York who urged senators to oppose Gabbard's confirmation, told JI on Tuesday. Levine raised concerns about Gabbard's ability to influence President Donald Trump's approach to Iran, as nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran are set to continue this weekend. He said that if Trump does the 'right thing' —meaning he ends the Iran negotiations and supports a strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure —then the U.S. will 'save a lot of lives, just like Harry Truman did, and will not require the dropping of a nuclear bomb.' 'Im very concerned about the isolationist wing of the Republican Party,' Levine continued. 'I dont know whos winning out, because we dont know what the end result is in Iran yet.' Several Republican senators questioned why Gabbard would make the video in the first place. 'I thought it was not appropriate,' Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told JI. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) described the impact of the bomb as 'horrible' but said it was necessary to end the war, in which his father had fought. 'Dropping those bombs probably saved a million servicemens lives. If you dont want to get nuked, dont start barbaric wars,' Graham told JI. 'I think its a horrible thing to happen to people, but it was brought on by Japan, and if I were Harry Truman, I would have done the same thing because the casualty estimates were a million dead Americans invading mainland Japan.' Alexa Henning, Gabbard's deputy chief of staff, declined to say whether Gabbard was referring in the video to a specific nation or to specific people. Acknowledging the past is critical to inform the future. President Trump has repeatedly stated in the past that he recognizes the immeasurable suffering, and annihilation can be caused by nuclear war, which is why he has been unequivocal that we all need to do everything possible to work towards peace,' Henning said in a statement. 'DNI Gabbard supports President Trump's clearly stated objectives of bringing about lasting peace and stability and preventing war. Despite the criticism coming even from some allies, Gabbard's views do not appear to have gone outside the realm of what Trump hopes to see from her. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), a personal friend of Gabbard's from their shared time in the House, defended Gabbard's post and her service as DNI. I think shes doing a great job … Shes doing exactly what the president wanted her to do,' Mullin told JI. People have been critical of her, and this is D.C., right? Youre going to get criticized for walking down the stairs wrong, so criticism is part of the job.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

29 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Trump Issues Grave Warning to Reporters: ‘You Are in Danger'

President Donald Trump delivered a stark warning to a group of reporters interviewing him at an airfield in New Jersey, telling them they were 'in danger.' The president was fielding questions about Israel's conflict with Iran after announcing on Thursday that he had given himself a two-week deadline to decide on whether to attack Iran. 'Are you worried Iran's proxies would wage terror attacks against American targets abroad if you order military action?' a reporter asked. 'We're always concerned about that, and we have to take them out and be very strong,' Trump began, before his response took a seemingly dark turn. 'You're even in danger talking to me right now,' he said. 'Do you know that? You are in danger talking to me right now, so I should probably get out of here. But you guys are actually in danger. Can you believe it?' Interestingly, this isn't the first time that Trump has offered 'danger' as a reason to end an interview. Back in August, Trump cut short a conversation with Newsweek while he was near the U.S.-Mexico border because he was worried that authorities hadn't found a man who threatened his life. 'Can I tell you something,' he said then. 'We're in danger standing here talking, so let's not talk any longer. No, I know about it, but they don't want me standing here. They don't want you standing here either.' On the campaign trail, Trump survived two attempts on his life, including a near-miss at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, when a bullet scraped his ear. The question of whether Trump will join Israel in attacking Iran has divided MAGA over the last week, enraging even some of the president's most devout supporters. On Thursday, Trump punted the decision. The White House announced that he had given himself two weeks to come to a final determination. However, some have pointed out that Trump has a habit of giving himself two weeks to make important decisions—and then ignoring his own deadline. Over the last several months, Trump has repeatedly used the two-week line concerning several different questions about the Russia-Ukraine war.

USA Today

40 minutes ago

• USA Today

Some Democrats are finally standing up to Trump – even if it gets them arrested

Not all Democrats are afraid to push back against Donald Trump's immigration policy. Some are willing to be detained. In safely blue areas of the country, constituents are asking themselves who has the audacity to stand up to President Donald Trump's extreme immigration agenda. Earlier this week, New York City constituents got their answer. On June 17, New York City comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents while escorting a man out of immigration court in Manhattan. Lander, who repeatedly asked to see a judicial warrant for the man ICE was attempting to detain, was held in custody for four hours. The federal government is still trying to decide whether it will charge him with a crime. 'We're not just showing up for just a few families, or for the strength of our democracy,' Lander told the supporters waiting for him outside the federal courthouse. 'We are showing up for the future of New York City.' While it's unclear that Lander's arrest will make any difference in his chances to be New York City's next mayor, one thing is now certain: He is the kind of person the city and Democrats need in the Trump era. Democrats should be fighting Trump's systematic hate Lander is now a member of an exclusive group of Democratic politicians who have gotten into legal trouble for combating the Trump administration's extreme deportation agenda. These politicians are not doing anything wrong – they are simply trying to stand up for the immigrants who make this country great. Opinion: Trump lied about the LA protests so you wouldn't see what he's really doing The first to face legal repercussions was Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who was arrested in April and later indicted for allegedly assisting an undocumented immigrant in escaping arrest. Then in May, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested at an ICE detention center when three members of New Jersey's congressional delegation arrived for an unannounced inspection. Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-New Jersey, who was also arrested that day, was indicted on June 10 for allegedly interfering with immigration officers. Less than a week before Lander's arrest, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-California, was handcuffed and thrown out of a Department of Homeland Security news conference. This defiance is encouraging to see. People who have the privilege of a public platform are putting their careers on the line to stand up for those who are being terrorized by the federal government. These actions, so long as they are peaceful, are how Democrats should be reacting to the Trump administration. We need a mayoral candidate who suits New York Until this moment, Lander had flown under the radar for the duration of the city's mayoral race. Despite his position as the city's top financial officer and an endorsement from a panel of experts with The New York Times, Lander has been polling behind front-runner Andrew Cuomo, a former New York governor, and Zohran Mamdani, a member of the New York State Assembly. Who is Zohran Mamdani? A Democratic socialist is running for NYC mayor. I hope he can rally voters. | Opinion It's not that Lander is a bad candidate – he's experienced and policy-driven, and he has a progressive view of what the city can be. He and Mamdani have cross-endorsed each other in the hopes of besting Cuomo in the ranked-choice voting system. Lander just doesn't have Cuomo's name recognition or Mamdani's charisma. By getting arrested, Lander has shown New Yorkers that someone is willing to stand up for their values of protecting immigrants. We don't have to elect Cuomo, who had to resign in disgrace in 2021 after more than a dozen women accused him of sexual harassment. Nor do we have to elect incumbent Eric Adams, who has welcomed ICE into our city against the wishes of the voters. Lander is showing us that we could have someone who is willing to fight the Trump administration while leading the nation's most populous city. And he's one of several showing Democrats the way forward. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno

Newsweek

an hour ago

• Newsweek

How Animal Testing in US Could Be Transformed Under Trump

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Millions of animals each year are killed in U.S. laboratories as part of medical training and chemical, food, drug and cosmetic testing, according to the non-profit animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). For many animals held captive for research, including a huge range of species from dogs, cats and hamsters to elephants, dolphins and many other species, pain is "not minimized," U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows. The issue of animal testing is something most Americans agree on: it needs to change and gradually be stopped. A Morning Consult poll conducted at the end of last year found that 80 percent of the 2,205 participants either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "The US government should commit to a plan to phase out experiments on animals." Since President Donald Trump began his second term, his administration has been making moves to transform and reduce animal testing in country, although the question remains as to whether it will be enough to spare many more animals from pain and suffering this year. Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva What Is The Trump Administration Doing About It? There have been various steps taken in different federal agencies to tackle the issue of animal testing since Trump was sworn in on January 20. In April, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was "taking a groundbreaking step to advance public health by replacing animal testing in the development of monoclonal antibody therapies and other drugs with more effective, human-relevant methods." The FDA said that its animal testing requirement will be "reduced, refined, or potentially replaced" with a range of approaches, including artificial intelligence-based models, known as New Approach Methodologies or NAMs data. A Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official told Newsweek: "The agency is paving the way for faster, safer, and more cost-effective treatments for American patients. "As we restore the agency's commitment to gold-standard science and integrity, this shift will help accelerate cures, lower drug prices, and reaffirm U.S. leadership in ethical, modern science." The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it was "adopting a new initiative to expand innovative, human-based science while reducing animal use in research," in alignment with the FDA's initiative. The agency said that while "traditional animal models continue to be vital to advancing scientific knowledge," new and emerging technologies could act as alternative methods, either alone or in combination with animal models. The NIH Office of Extramural Research told Newsweek it was "committed to transparently assessing where animal use can be reduced or eliminated by transitioning to [new approach methodologies (NAMs)]." "Areas where research using animals is currently necessary represent high-priority opportunities for investment in NAMs," the agency added. It added that it will "further its efforts to coordinate agency-wide efforts to develop, validate, and scale the use of NAMs across the agency's biomedical research portfolio and facilitate interagency coordination and regulatory translation for public health protection." During Trump's first term, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a directive to "prioritize efforts to reduce animal testing and committed to reducing testing on mammals by 30 percent by 2025 and to eliminate it completely by 2035," an EPA spokesperson told Newsweek. Although, the spokesperson added: "the Biden Administration halted progress on these efforts by delaying compliance deadlines." As a member of the House, Lee Zeldin, the EPA's current administrator, co-sponsored various bills during Trump's first term regarding animal cruelty, covering issues such as phasing out animal-based testing for cosmetic products; ending taxpayer funding for painful experiments on dogs at the Department of Veteran Affairs; empowering federal law enforcement to prosecute animal abuse cases that cross state lines; and others, the spokesperson said. What The Experts Think Needs To Be Done The Trump administration's efforts to tackle the issue of animal testing appear to be a step in the right direction, according to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "I was pleasantly surprised and quite frankly a bit shocked to read the simultaneous announcements by the NIH and the FDA regarding a new emphasis on the use of alternatives to animals," Jeffrey Morgan, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at Brown University in Rhode Island, told Newsweek. Morgan, who is also the director of the Center for Alternatives to Animals in Testing at Brown University, said that both agencies are moving together in the same direction on the issue "sends a unified and very powerful message to the research and biotech communities." He added that the announcements showed "a major acknowledgement of the limitations of the use of animals in research and testing." "What is especially exciting is that the NIH announcement will encourage the entry of new investigators into the field, further accelerating innovation in alternatives with exciting impacts for both discovery and applied research across all diseases," he said. He added that the FDA announcement and its emphasis on a new regulatory science that embraces data from alternatives was "equally exciting." "The demands of this new regulatory science will likewise accelerate innovation because it will establish the much-needed regulatory framework for the rigorous evaluation of data from alternatives," he said. While the administration's initiatives to shift research away from animal testing is heading in the right direction, its policies are "overdue," Dr. Thomas Hartung, a professor in the department of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. "The animal tests for safety were introduced more than 50 years ago. There is no other area of science where we do not adapt to scientific progress," he said. Hartung added that animal "testing takes too long and is too expensive to really provide the safety consumers want." He said that running animal tests for new chemicals can cost millions and take years in some cases. "Nobody can wait that long, even if they can afford the testing costs," he said. Hartung also believes the shifts in the industry to reduce animal testing have been "coming for a while," as over the last two decades, America's opposition to animal use in medical research has been increasing. "The alignment of FDA and NIH really makes the difference now, which I think is evidence of a strong relationship of their leaderships," he said. Yet in order to make a real difference, Hartung said clear deadlines are key to show that "this is not just lip service." He also said that he thought "the transformative nature of artificial intelligence in this field is not fully acknowledged." "We also need an objective framework for change to better science, such as the evidence-based toxicology approach," he said.