Trump's Trouble With Tulsi

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
Back in March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard delivered a view of Iran to the House Intelligence Committee that was in line with Trump-administration policy: hostile toward Tehran, but also skeptical of the need for American intervention. Unfortunately for her, though, things have changed in the past three months.
'Iran continues to seek to expand its influence in the Middle East,' Gabbard said. Nevertheless, she said, the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear-weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' (Presumably she was referring to Ali Khamenei and not his long-dead predecessor, Ruhollah Khomeini.)
That may have been President Donald Trump's view in March too, but this week, Trump told reporters that Iran is on the verge of getting a nuclear bomb. When asked about Gabbard's testimony, Trump dismissed it. 'I don't care what she said,' he said. 'I think they were very close to having one.'
This kind of harsh dismissal of American intelligence was a hallmark of Trump's first term in office. Shortly before his inauguration, he compared intelligence agencies to Nazis, and somehow things got worse from there. He infamously sided with Russia's Vladimir Putin rather than the intelligence community on the question of Russian interference in the 2016 election, accused former officials of treason, and reportedly clashed with DNI Dan Coats over his unwillingness to take his side in political conflicts.
That problem was supposed to be solved in his second term. Rather than choose someone like Coats, a former senator who had experience with intelligence, or his successor, John Ratcliffe, who claimed he did, Trump nominated Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic member of Congress who had endorsed him for president. (Ratcliffe, having proved his loyalty to Trump in the first term, was named CIA director.)
Gabbard shared a few things with Trump: an odd affinity for Putin's government, and a public stance of opposing American intervention. But above all, her qualification for the job was that she, like Trump, bore a huge grudge against the intelligence agencies, making her an ideal pick in his Cabinet of retribution.
Now the limits of this approach to appointments are coming into view. Gabbard's beef with the IC was her sense that it was too belligerent and interventionist, especially with regard to her pals in places such as Syria and Russia; she was also angry because she had reportedly been briefly placed on a government watch list for flying. Gabbard opposes foreign wars, and it appears that she doesn't want intelligence to implicate her friends overseas. But when the intelligence points against American intervention, as it does with Iran, she is happy to stand behind it despite her skepticism of the analysts.
Trump, by contrast, doesn't want the intelligence to complicate his choices at all. The president was fine with the IC assessment from earlier this year, when his line was that he opposed wars and would keep the United States out. But now that he has made a quick shift from trying to restrain Israel from striking Iran to demanding Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER'—a baffling demand of a country with which the U.S. is not at war—and contemplating American attacks, the conclusion that Iran isn't that close to a bomb is a real hindrance.
Politico reports that Trump was annoyed by a video Gabbard posted earlier this month in which she warned about 'political elite and warmongers' risking nuclear war, and she was reportedly excluded from a Camp David meeting. (The White House has insisted that all principals are on the same page, though Trump's dismissive comments about Gabbard earlier this week are telling.) Cutting out the DNI at a crucial moment like this is an unusual choice, though the role has never been well defined: Although it was created to sit atop the U.S. intelligence agencies and coordinate among them, officials such as the director of the CIA have often wielded more power.
Trump's saber-rattling has created rifts within the MAGA coalition, as my colleagues Jonathan Lemire and Isaac Stanley-Becker reported yesterday. In reality, Trump was never the dove that he made himself out to be. He has consistently backed American involvement overseas. During the 2016 election, he claimed that he had been against the Iraq War from the start, placing the idea at the center of his campaign even though there is no evidence for it. As president, he escalated U.S. involvement in Syria, backed the Saudi war in Yemen and vetoed Congress's attempt to curtail it, and—in one of his major foreign-policy successes—assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Throughout his first term, he treated the troops as a political prop.
These tendencies have become more pronounced in his second term, though Trump's favorite places to send troops remain within national borders: in the streets of Los Angeles or parading through Washington, D.C. He launched a series of major strikes against Yemen's Houthi rebels, despite the misgivings of his dovish vice president, and then abruptly stopped them when it became clear that no easy victory was forthcoming. This is the crux of the matter with Iran too. Although he may be hesitant about American involvement overseas, Trump loves displays of strength. He sees one in Israel's attacks on Iran, and he wants in on the action.
Whether the MAGA doves believed Trump really was one of them or simply hoped they could persuade him in the moment is something only they can answer. But his actions this week show that his real resentment was not toward intervention or even intelligence itself. It was toward anything and anyone who might restrain his caprices.
Related:
Isn't Trump supposed to be anti-war?
The thing that binds Gabbard, Gaetz, and Hegseth to Trump
Here are three new stories from The Atlantic:
The Tesla brain drain
The David Frum Show: What comes next for Iran?
Why would the Trump family want to run a phone company?
Today's News
The Federal Reserve will hold interest rates steady. Earlier today, President Donald Trump called Fed Chair Jerome Powell 'stupid' and contemplated installing himself at the Reserve.
Trump said that he 'may' or 'may not' strike Iran, adding that 'nobody knows' what he's going to do.
The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
Evening Read
The Dumbest Phone Is Parenting Genius
By Rheana Murray
When Caron Morse's 9-year-old daughter asked for a smartphone last year, her reaction, she told me, was unambiguous: 'A hard hell no.' Morse is a mental-health provider in the Portland, Maine, public-school system, and she was firmly against smartphones, having seen how social media and abundant screen time could shorten students' attention spans and give them new anxieties. But she wanted her children to have some independence—to be able to call friends, arrange playdates, and reach out to their grandparents on their own. She also needed a break. 'I was so sick,' she said, 'of being the middle person in any correspondence.'
So when her daughter turned 10, Morse did get her a phone: a landline.
Read the full article.
More From The Atlantic
Why isn't Russia defending Iran?
The magic realism of Zohran Mamdani
The fear coursing through state capitols
The new danger in Trump's Washington: honoring federal employees
The master of the white-knuckle narrative
Culture Break
Read. In her new book, Murderland, Caroline Fraser offers a provocative argument about what creates serial killers.
Listen. Clifton Chenier changed music history. On the centennial of his birth, musicians from across genres are paying homage to the King of Zydeco, Reya Hart writes.
Play our daily crossword.
Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter.
Explore all of our newsletters here.
When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
Article originally published at The Atlantic

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Washington Post

26 minutes ago

• Washington Post

Trump says Gabbard was 'wrong' about Iran and Israeli strikes could be 'very hard to stop'

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Friday that his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard , was 'wrong' when she previously said that the U.S. believed Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon, and he suggested that it would be 'very hard to stop' Israel's strikes on Iran in order to negotiate a possible ceasefire.

Politico

28 minutes ago

• Politico

Israel presses ahead with strikes as Trump's 2-week deadline looms

Israeli officials insisted Friday that they will keep up their bombing campaign against Iran, even as President Donald Trump has given Tehran a two-week deadline to come to some sort of diplomatic deal that reins in its nuclear program. Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, laid out his country's case at the U.N. Security Council, facing off Friday with Iranian representatives who urged the world to stop the Israeli strikes. 'Israel will not stop. Not until Iran's nuclear threat is dismantled, not until its war machine is disarmed, not until our people and yours are safe,' Danon declared. The Israeli assertions highlight how Trump's statement that he'll decide 'in the next two weeks' whether to strike Iranian nuclear sites provides an opportunity to Israel as much as it puts pressure on Iran. For Iran, it's two weeks to come to some sort of diplomatic deal with the U.S. that constrains its nuclear, and possibly other, programs. For Israel, it's a focused timeframe to do as much damage as it can to Iran's nuclear and broader military infrastructure before the U.S. may pressure it to accept a diplomatic solution. The more damage Israel does, the more it could weaken an enemy and improve the odds that Iran will capitulate to U.S. demands in the diplomatic process. The strikes themselves couldthreaten the survival of Iran's Islamist regime. Trump told reporters on Friday that he wasn't about to push Israel to halt its assault in Iran while he weighs what the U.S. should do. 'It's very hard to make that request right now,' Trump said. 'If somebody is winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody is losing, but we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens.' A senior administration official, granted anonymity to speak about the president's thinking, said 'everything is still on the table.' 'This is about giving this a little time and seeing if things look any different in a couple weeks,' the official said. Trump's 'two-week' window was delivered Thursday by press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who said, quoting Trump, that his delay in determining whether to join Israel's attack on Iran was 'based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' Trump often says he'll make decisions in two weeks, only to extend his deadline again or never follow through. Still, Israel and Iran appear to believe the next two weeks will be a crucial phase. Iranian officials showed up for nuclear talks with European officials on Friday in Geneva; Israel pressed ahead with its bombing campaign against Iran, which is responding with missiles. Iranian officials met Friday with European envoys in Geneva in an attempt to revitalize the diplomatic process. The talks ended on an ambiguous note. Iranian officials have said their participation in future talks would hinge on Israel stopping its attacks. Some European representatives said talks should continue regardless, even as they urged both sides to avoid escalation. 'We invited the Iranian minister to consider negotiations with all sides, including the United States, without awaiting the cessation of strikes, which we also hope for,' French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot said. For Israel, the most critical, but perhaps toughest, official objective is eliminating Iran's nuclear facility at Fordo. That facility is buried deep underground, and Israel has been hoping Trump will enter the fight and use special, massive U.S. bombs to destroy it. There are concerns, however, including among Republicans, that Iran could retaliate against U.S. assets if America enters the conflict on any level, dragging America into another Middle Eastern war. Trump campaigned on avoiding such wars. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted that Israel has means to destroy Fordo on its own. It's not clear what those methods could involve, but Israel has significant intelligence operations inside Iran and it has often surprised even Washington with its capabilities. Either way, current and former Israeli officials said they saw no reason for Israel to back off its strikes now, despite calls for deescalation from some world capitals. The more Israel degrades Iran's capabilities, the less able Tehran will be to mount retaliatory attacks on Israel or the United States, should the latter choose to enter the war. From the beginning, 'the Israeli planning was based on the assumption that we have to do it alone,' said a former Israeli diplomat familiar with the situation. The person, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss highly sensitive issues. It's unclear whether there is any deal with Iran that Israel would deem strong enough. There is tremendous distrust of Iran's Islamist regime within Israel's security establishment, leading to a sense that Iran would cheat on any deal. Another unsettled question is whether a deal with Iran will cover only its nuclear program or also curb its ballistic missile initiative and support for proxy militias in the region. Some analysts have argued that Netanyahu decided to begin attacking Iran last week because he was worried earlier nuclear talks between Iran and the Trump administration would yield too weak a deal. If new efforts at diplomacy yield fruit, Trump could pressure Netanyahu to accept whatever deal emerges, potentially even by threatening to withhold weapons and other equipment Israel needs to defend itself against Iran. The war is costly for Israel, which has been fighting on multiple fronts — in particular against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip — since October 2023. As one Israeli official said, Iranian missile attacks feel like 'Russian roulette' to Israeli citizens.

Associated Press

29 minutes ago

• Associated Press

Trump says Gabbard was 'wrong' about Iran and Israeli strikes could be 'very hard to stop'

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Friday that his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was 'wrong' when she previously said that the U.S. believed Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon, and he suggested that it would be 'very hard to stop' Israel's strikes on Iran in order to negotiate a possible ceasefire. Trump has recently taken a more aggressive public stance toward Tehran as he's sought more time to weigh whether to attack Iran by striking its well-defended Fordo uranium enrichment facility. Buried under a mountain, the facility is believed to be out of the reach of all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. After landing in New Jersey for an evening fundraiser for his super political action committee, Trump was asked about Gabbard's comments to Congress in March that U.S. spy agencies believed that Iran wasn't working on nuclear warheads. The president responded, 'Well then, my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?' Informed that it had been Gabbard, Trump said, 'She's wrong.' In a subsequent post on X, Gabbard said her testimony was taken out of context '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,' she wrote. 'President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree.' Still, disavowing Gabbard's previous assessment came a day after the White House said Trump would decide within two weeks whether the U.S. military would get directly involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. It said seeking additional time was 'based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' But on Friday, Trump himself seemed to cast doubts on the possibility of talks leading to a pause in fighting between Israel and Iran. He said that, while he might support a ceasefire, Israel's strikes on Iran could be 'very hard to stop.' Asked about Iran suggesting that, if the U.S. was serious about furthering negotiations, it could call on Israel to stop its strikes, Trump responded, 'I think it's very hard to make that request right now.' 'If somebody is winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody is losing,' Trump said. 'But we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens.' The president later added, 'It's very hard to stop when you look at it.' 'Israel's doing well in terms of war. And, I think, you would say that Iran is doing less well. It's a little bit hard to get somebody to stop,' Trump said. Trump campaigned on decrying 'endless wars' and has vowed to be an international peacemaker. That's led some, even among conservatives, to point to Trump's past criticism of the U.S. invasion of Iraq beginning in 2003 as being at odds with his more aggressive stance toward Iran now. Trump suggested the two situations were very different, though. 'There were no weapons of mass destruction. I never thought there were. And that was somewhat pre-nuclear. You know, it was, it was a nuclear age, but nothing like it is today,' Trump said of his past criticism of the administration of President George W. Bush. He added of Iran's current nuclear program, 'It looked like I'm right about the material that they've gathered already. It's a tremendous amount of material.' Trump also cast doubts on Iran's developing nuclear capabilities for civilian pursuits, like power generation. 'You're sitting on one of the largest oil piles anywhere in the world,' he said. 'It's a little bit hard to see why you'd need that.' ____