To deliver intelligence to Trump, DNI Tulsi Gabbard eyes creative solutions

By any fair measure, Donald Trump's second term has been challenging for U.S. intelligence agencies. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, for example, recently fired the leaders of the National Intelligence Council because it dared to produce accurate information the president didn't like.
That coincided with reports of a Trump appointee trying to politicize intelligence, the White House moving forward with a 'major downsizing' at U.S. intelligence agencies, and the president's recent decision to fire the leadership of the National Security Agency, a key intelligence gathering department, as well as the National Security Council's director for intelligence.
But perhaps most important is the fact that Trump tends to ignore intelligence briefings and reports, as NBC News reported that Gabbard is exploring new ways to 'revamp' his intelligence briefings in order to bring them in line with 'how he likes to consume information.' From the report:
One idea that's been discussed is possibly creating a video version of the PDB that's made to look and feel like a Fox News broadcast, four of the people with direct knowledge of the discussions said. ... One idea that has been discussed is to transform the PDB so it mirrors a Fox News broadcast, according to four of the people with direct knowledge of the discussions. Under that concept as it has been discussed, the national intelligence director's office could hire a Fox News producer to produce it and one of the network's personalities to present it; Trump, an avid Fox News viewer, could then watch the broadcast PDB whenever he wanted.
I can appreciate why this might seem amusing, but NBC News wasn't kidding.
The same report noted that one insider envisioned a new presidential daily briefing that would include 'maps with animated representations of exploding bombs, similar to a video game,' apparently in the hopes of capturing the president's attention.
'The problem with Trump is that he doesn't read,' said one person with direct knowledge of the PDB discussions.
Of course, that's only part of the problem. Not only does the Republican avoid reading briefing materials, he also doesn't want to receive in-person, oral presentations of intelligence, either. Politico reported last month that Trump, during his second term, 'has sat for just 12 presentations from intelligence officials of the President's Daily Brief,' which represents 'a significant drop' compared with the Republican's first term, and a vastly smaller number than the presentations for recent Democratic presidents.
Time will tell whether Gabbard's creative solutions are implemented — how intelligence officials would give a Fox News producer the necessary security clearance would be an interesting challenge — but hanging overheard is the inconvenient fact that Trump doesn't seem to want intelligence briefings.
His record on this is long and unambiguous. During his transition process in 2016, for example, Trump skipped nearly all of his intelligence briefings. Asked why, the Republican told Fox News in December 2016, 'Well, I get it when I need it. ... I don't have to be told — you know, I'm, like, a smart person.'
As his inauguration drew closer, Trump acknowledged that he likes very short intelligence briefings. 'I like bullets, or I like as little as possible,' he explained in January 2017. Around the same time, he added, 'I don't need, you know, 200-page reports on something that can be handled on a page.'
Things did not improve once he was in power. In early 2017, intelligence professionals went to great lengths to try to accommodate the president's toddler-like attention span, preparing reports 'with lots of graphics and maps.' National Security Council officials eventually learned that Trump was likely to stop reading important materials unless he saw his own name, so they included his name in 'as many paragraphs' as possible.
In August 2017, The Washington Post had a piece on then-White House National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, who struggled to 'hold the attention of the president' during briefings on Afghanistan. The article noted, '[E]ven a single page of bullet points on the country seemed to tax the president's attention span on the subject.'
A Trump confidant said at the time, 'I call the president the two-minute man. The president has patience for a half-page.'
In February 2018, the Post reported that Trump 'rarely, if ever' read the PDB prepared for him. Months later, the Post had a separate report noting that the CIA and other agencies devoted enormous 'time, energy and resources' to ensuring that Trump received key intelligence, but 'his seeming imperviousness to such material often renders 'all of that a waste.''
In early 2020, the Post reported that Trump missed the early alarms on the Covid threat in part because he 'routinely skips reading the PDB' and had 'little patience' for oral summaries of the intelligence. Exactly five years ago next week, The New York Times had a related report:
The president veers off on tangents and getting him back on topic is difficult, they said. He has a short attention span and rarely, if ever, reads intelligence reports, relying instead on conservative media and his friends for information. He is unashamed to interrupt intelligence officers and riff based on tips or gossip. ... Mr. Trump rarely absorbs information that he disagrees with or that runs counter to his worldview, the officials said. Briefing him has been so great a challenge compared with his predecessors that the intelligence agencies have hired outside consultants to study how better to present information to him.
It was an extraordinary revelation to consider: A sitting American president, in a time of multiple and dangerous crises, was so resistant to learning about security threats that his own country's intelligence officials sought outside help to figure out how to get him to listen and focus.
Will Gabbard figure out a way to get Trump to care about information he doesn't want to receive? There's reason for skepticism.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsweek

28 minutes ago

• Newsweek

War Powers Act Explained as Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna Push House Resolution

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. A bipartisan group of House lawmakers, led by Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California introduced a War Powers Resolution Tuesday, just days before President Donald Trump authorized a military strike on three key nuclear facilities in Iran. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities abroad without Congressional consent. The current legislative push invokes the act's provisions and highlights persistent congressional frustration over what many see as executive overreach in the deployment of military force. Khanna called for Congress to return to Washington, D.C., to vote on the measure, which he said Sunday had up to 50 co-sponsors across both parties. Why It Matters The House resolution spotlights a critical debate over constitutional war powers at a moment when U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts risks escalation. Lawmakers are seeking to reinforce Congress's authority to declare war amid rising tensions between Iran and Israel and amid U.S. military actions that, according to critics, may exceed presidential powers. The House initiative mirrors concurrent moves in the Senate, where Democratic Virginia Senator Tim Kaine and others have advanced parallel resolutions to restrict executive military action in Iran without legislative consent. This legislative surge reflects mounting concerns about the scope and legality of recent U.S. military activity abroad. United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024. United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024. Getty What To Know Massie introduced the War Powers Resolution on Tuesday, emphasizing that the U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war with Congress, not the President. Massie invited participation from lawmakers across the aisle, underscoring bipartisan concern about unauthorized military actions, Newsweek previously reported. Khanna quickly co-sponsored the measure and publicly called for Congress to reconvene and vote. "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution," Khanna said in a press release. "Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," Khanna said. "Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." "Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace," Rep. Khanna concluded. The resolution has garnered support from 50 House members, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Pramila Jayapal. The list remains heavily Democrat, though more Republicans may break with the party in the coming days as the aftermath of Trump's military strikes continue to play out. What People Are Saying Rep. Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, said in an official statement "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk. Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation. Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace." President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post, in part: "Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is. Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him. He is a negative force who almost always Votes "NO," no matter how good something may be. He's a simple minded "grandstander" who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling "DEATH TO AMERICA" at every chance they get." What Happens Next The House War Powers Resolution is scheduled for a mandatory floor vote within 15 days under the chamber's rules. Parallel debates are ongoing in the Senate. As U.S. lawmakers weigh the resolution, the outcome may set new precedents for executive military authority and the balance of war powers between Congress and the White House.

USA Today

30 minutes ago

• USA Today

Trump says Iran's nuclear sites were 'obliterated.' Were they?

While that may be the case, an independent assessment of Iran's nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency has not occurred. WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and his defense chief say American warplanes completely "obliterated" Iran's three major nuclear complexes at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan using bunker-busting bombs that have the ability to penetrate underground targets. While that may be the case, there has so far been no independent assessment of that assertion from nuclear watchdogs, international officials or others with direct information of the situation on the ground. And other U.S. officials have not used such definitive rhetoric. "Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine told reporters a day after the strikes on June 22. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the main agency that assesses the scale and evolution of Iran's nuclear program, said hostilities would need to cease for it to resume inspections. The organization, housed within the United Nations, said it would hold an emergency meeting June 23. Trump said Iran's nuclear sites were obliterated It was not entirely clear what evidence or intelligence Trump was relying on when he told the world that Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity had been destroyed. He also disputed twice disputed intelligence community findings before the strike that Iran was not close to producing a nuclear weapon. "Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success," Trump said in a late-night June 21 address. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." Hegseth used similar rhetoric at a morning news conference, saying that thanks to Trump's leadership, "Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated." But a battle damage assessment is ongoing, Hegseth acknowledged during in the briefing. He noted it was the Pentagon's "initial assessment" its precision munitions had the desired effect. "Especially in Fordow, which was the primary target here. We believe we achieved destruction of capabilities there," Hegseth told reporters. Caine was more cautious. "It would be way too early for me to comment on what may or may not still be there," he said when asked about Iran's remaining nuclear capabilities during the same news conference. Live updates: US warns of 'heightened threat environment' after strikes on Iran nukes How much of a hit did Iran take? It was a "responsible" comment from Caine, said Simone Ledeen, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East in Trump's first administration. Whether the Iranian nuclear program was set back a decade or decades and whether there is no more nuclear program period "really needs to be determined by a systematic battle damage assessment," she said. Yet, given what the president and secretary of defense know of the bombs that were dropped and where, Leeden added, "I don't think it's far-fetched for them to say that these sites were destroyed." Democratic lawmakers on committees that oversee the military, intelligence community and foreign policy apparatus are pushing for classified briefings to help them reach their own conclusions. "There is a lot we still don't know and we need an accurate, factual damage assessment," Senate Armed Services ranking member Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, said in a statement. Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Jeanne Shaheen also said in a statement, "We are still waiting to understand the extent to which that action has deterred Iran's nuclear threat." "President Trump must now de-escalate tensions with Iran and immediately brief Congress," the New Hampshire Democrat said. Vice President JD Vance did not specify the extent of the damage to Iran's sites as he made a round of television interviews the morning after the strike. "But we know that we've set the Iranian nuclear program back substantially last night," Vance said on ABC News' "This Week" program. "Whether it's years or beyond that, we know it's going to be a very long time before Iran can even build a nuclear weapon if they want to." Iran claims its uranium stockpiles were evacuated Iran's IRIB state broadcaster claimed its stockpiles of enriched uranium were "evacuated" from all threes sites prior to the U.S. strikes, another assertion not independently verified. Russian Security Council deputy chairman of Dmitry Medvedev also said Iran's critical nuclear infrastructure appeared to be unaffected or to have sustained only minor damage. "The enrichment of nuclear material – and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons – will continue," Medvedev said in a social media thread. "A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads." Russia is an ally of Tehran's and Medvedev is a previous Russian president. Israeli forces could try to enter Iran's nuclear sites in a sensitive operation and make a determination for itself and the United States, said Leeden, the first-term Trump defense official. But an official assessment will have to be conducted by the IAEA, which says it can not go in until the conflict ends, for the international community to accept it. "I hope it is the end, so IAEA can get their inspectors in there sooner rather than later," Leeden said. "You also don't want loose material getting into the wrong hands." Contributing: Kim Hjelmgaard

Yahoo

32 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Iran Stands Alone Against Trump and Israel, Stripped of Allies

(Bloomberg) -- Iran's leaders are discovering they're on their own against the US and Israel, without the network of proxies and allies that allowed them to project power in the Middle East and beyond. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports As the Islamic Republic confronts its most perilous moment in decades following the bombing of its nuclear facilities ordered by US President Donald Trump, Russia and China are sitting on the sidelines and offering only rhetorical support. Militia groups Iran has armed and funded for years are refusing or unable to enter the fight in support of their patron. After decades of being stuck in a game of fragile detente, the entire geopolitical order of the Middle East is being redone. The Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel was only the beginning. It led to multiple conflicts and tested decades-long alliances. It offered Trump, on his return to power this year, a chance to do what no president before him had dared by attacking Iran so aggressively and directly. Since Israel started strikes on Iran on June 13, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spoken of goals beyond neutering Tehran's nuclear threat, even hinting at regime change. But the risk is that an isolated Iran could become more unpredictable with its once-steadfast allies keeping their distance. 'As Iran faces its most critical military test in decades, further tangible assistance from either Moscow or Beijing remains unlikely,' said Bloomberg Economics analysts including Adam Farrar and Dina Esfandiary. 'While both maintain bilateral strategic partnerships with Tehran, neither Russia nor China is a formal military ally, and neither is likely to provide significant military or economic aid due to their own limitations and broader strategic considerations.' Iran isn't getting any support, either, from the BRICS grouping of emerging markets that purports to want a new global order that's not dominated by Western nations. The organization — set up by Brazil, Russia, India and China and which Iran joined in early 2024 — has been silent over Israel and the US's attacks on the Islamic Republic. Iran signed a strategic cooperation treaty with Russia in January and it was a vital source of combat drones early in President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. However, Russian officials have made clear the pact includes no mutual-defense obligations and that Moscow has no intention of supplying Iran with weapons, even as they say Tehran hasn't asked for any. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters in Turkey on Sunday he plans to travel to Moscow to discuss the situation with Putin on Monday. He can expect warm words and little practical support. That's a far cry from 2015, when Russia joined Iran in sending forces to Syria to save the regime of President Bashar Al-Assad, which was eventually toppled by rebels last year. Moscow risks losing another key ally in the Middle East if the government in Tehran led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei falls. Yet while the Kremlin has condemned the Israeli and US attacks, Putin is distracted and stretched — militarily and economically — by his war in Ukraine. China, too, 'strongly' condemned the US strikes as a breach of international law. But it hasn't offered assistance to Iran, which sells some 90% of its oil exports to Beijing. Iran's Gulf neighbors urged restraint and warned of potentially devastating implications for the region if Iran retaliates against US assets in the Middle East. Nations such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates spent months trying to use their geopolitical and economic heft to bolster nuclear talks between the Americans and Iran. In the end, the talks have been overtaken by military power. Iran's proxy militant groups are mostly absent too. Hezbollah in Lebanon, hitherto the most potent member of Tehran's 'axis of resistance' was pummeled by Israeli forces last year, much as Hamas was. Israeli strikes on Assad's military in Syria, meanwhile, played a part in his government's collapse. Hezbollah still poses a threat and on Sunday the US ordered family members and non-emergency government personnel to leave Lebanon. Still, the group's not threatened to back Iran by firing on Israel, as it did right after Hamas' attack in 2023. The Houthis in Yemen are an exception and hours about the US strikes on Iran, they issued fresh threats against US commercial and naval ships. Yet they risk another American bombardment like that one Trump ordered before a truce with the group in May. The Europeans, meanwhile, are increasingly irrelevant, in terms of swaying Trump and Israel, and Tehran. The UK, France and Germany have historically held an important role in the Middle East. They represented the dominant economies in Europe. The first two were colonial powers in the region and in the case of Germany, given its Nazi past, there was a strong pro-Israel voice. Both the UK and France have had to handle a vocal voter constituency that was pro Palestinian and complicated their messaging. That was not always an easy needle to thread. The current UK government is led by Labour, whose legacy was damaged by Tony Blair's decision to join US President George W. Bush in his invasion of Iraq in 2003. So for Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has finally wrested control of the country from Conservatives, there is no upside to supporting any US military involvement. Trump didn't seem to need it, and the UK was happy to stay out of it even though it has enough of a presence that it could have been useful. Europeans find themselves sidelined with little power to influence the outcome. At the Group of Seven summit, Trump put France's President Emmanuel Macron in his place for suggesting the US was working toward a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. That did not stop Macron from working the phones, but the harsh reality that has filtered through is that Europe has its own existential crisis much closer to home. It needs Trump to at least make a cameo in The Hague for a NATO summit on Tuesday and Wednesday. The organization's leaders want assurances the US post-World War II commitment to stop Russian expansionism still stands. Europe has provided back channels for Iran in the past. In a climate where Europe and the US aren't working together on Iran, it's possible some valuable diplomatic signaling may be lost. That's one side effect of the US going it alone and of Europe being a bit player, as the crisis in the Middle East deepens. --With assistance from Eric Martin. Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data