🤐Inside Tulsi’s Tightrope on Iran
The president, I'm told, knows exactly where she stands — even if she can't say it publicly.
With help from Bethany Irvine…
THE TULSI TWO-STEP — During today’s House Intelligence Committee hearing with TULSI GABBARD and other Trump officials, Rep. ELISE STEFANIK (R-N.Y.) voiced the question that every single Republican I know is privately asking right now.
“Do you agree or disagree with …this letter that was put out by former [National Counterterrorist Center] Director [JOE] KENT?” Stefanik demanded.
A simple question — but an important one. Newly resigned and embarrassing the president as we speak, Kent is said to have had a close relationship with Gabbard, after all. And Gabbard — once a vocal Iran war skeptic — has been equivocating about her own personal positions on the war for days now.
But instead of pushing back on her former staffer — as virtually all other Trump officials have — Gabbard initially dodged.
“He said a lot of things in that letter,” she said. “Ultimately, we have provided the president with the intelligence assessments, and the president is elected by the American people and makes his own decisions based on the information that’s available to him.”
Gabbard would eventually say, “yes,” she was “concerned” about Kent accusing Israel of dragging the U.S. into war. But privately, a bunch of Hill Republicans weren’t pleased with her initial lukewarm answer — or that it took a follow-up to get her to break (even gently so) with an ex-aide now stirring up opposition.
THE REALITY IS THAT GABBARD is doing an Olympic-level balancing act right now. You won’t see the anti-interventionist jumping for joy over Trump’s war in Iran because — let’s all be honest — she probably firmly disagrees with it. But she also can’t go out and criticizes the president either. She has a job to do — and that’s to speak for the Trump Administration (not herself).
Gabbard’s tightrope has come into sharp focus over the past 48 hours during her marathon appearances on Capitol Hill. Even as officials like CIA Director JOHN RATCLIFF have agreed that, yes sir!, Iran posed an “imminent threat” to the U.S., Gabbard has sidestepping the questioning by arguing that only Trump can make that determination.
This at-times-cringy tap dance continued today: At the outset of the hearing, Gabbard drew a bright red line between her own views and that of the intelligence community she leads, declaring: “What I’m briefing here today does not represent my personal views or opinions, but rather the assessments of the intelligence community of the threats facing the United States.”
Truly extraordinary. Something I can’t ever recall a Cabinet official saying at such a high-profile hearing, in such a high-profile moment. And yet the translation was pretty darn clear: that Gabbard is skeptical of what’s happening in the Middle East — even if her job keeps her from saying so out loud.
NATURALLY, THIS AWKWARD DYNAMIC has set D.C.’s rumor mill churning. Some speculate Gabbard has presidential ambitions and is waiting for the right moment to follow Kent out the door with a splashy resignation. Others believe she’ll hang around, if only to try to try to nudge Trump toward diplomacy.
Let me put the speculation to rest: A person close to Gabbard tells me this afternoon that she has no plans to resign anytime soon — war or no.
The real question is what Trump thinks of Gabbard’s performance. I reported last summer that he grew annoyed with her cryptic video warning about getting sucked into a deadly nuclear war — a missive she posted as Trump was deliberating about whether to strike Iran. But more recently, I hear she’s won favor for that little election-security jaunt to Georgia — a topic that has always been dear to the president’s heart.
It’s worth noting that Trump has a reputation for welcoming debate among his advisors. He doesn’t mind disagreement and believes conflicting points of view offer a fuller spectrum of possibilities. But Trump also expects his advisors to be team players. And I have wondered how he’s taking Gabbard’s frequent dodging on these matters.
A person familiar with their relationship tells me the president has sought Gabbard’s input on Iran multiple times in recent weeks. He’s called her to the White House for one-on-ones to get her thoughts — and I’m told he knows exactly where she stands, even if she cannot articulate those disagreements publicly.
Last important nugget: Gabbard’s response to the “imminent threat” question? I’m told top officials came up with that response — that it’s up to the president — altogether before the hearing.
A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR
Affordable Health Care Initiative
America’s health insurance providers are stepping up — negotiating with hospitals and drug companies to fight rising costs.
ABOUT THAT $200 BILLION WAR REQUEST — The Trump Administration is already gearing up for a fight with Congress over additional funding for the war and the military. As Secretary of War PETE HEGSETH put it rather succinctly during his presser this morning: “Obviously it takes money to kill bad guys.”
During today’s bilateral meeting with Japan’s prime minister, Trump called the funding a “small price to pay to make sure we stay tippy top.”
Democrats are already balking — and salivating over the opportunity to slam Republicans for funding a war the public doesn’t want while prices remain top of mind. But Republicans are sharpening a counter that could be just as powerful: that Democrats had no problem bankrolling Ukraine and are now being stingy with our own troops.
“Wait a second. So for what — six years?— you guys had no problem writing blank checks to Ukraine? And now, suddenly, you care about funding our military?” my co-host SEAN SPICER complained on our political talk show “THE HUDDLE,” today. “Give me a break.”
As I told Sean and our third co-host DAN TURRENTINE this morning, that’s probably the best counter the administration has to browbeat the Hill into approving the cash infusion.
Still, there’s no doubt that the funding request allows Congress to flex against an administration that has run roughshod over the Hill since Trump returned to power. Lawmakers will get to prod the administration about strategy and the end-game.
This dynamic could quickly shift in Democrats’ favor if the president puts American boots on the ground — something he’s clearly weighing. Some Republicans who refused to back Democrats’ War Powers gambit aimed at handcuffing the president on foreign policy matters, may suddenly decide they want more of a say on happenings in the Middle East.
👀 🎥 ALSO ON THE HUDDLE TODAY:
A dive into why Trump is desperate to stop the tit-for-tat between Israel and Iran, in blowing up oil infrastructure. “You can’t just rebuild that on Friday and have it back up and running Monday. You’re taking that thing out for probably years…. That’s not just short-term damage. That’s long-term oil prices.”
A candid discussion about that curious line in WaPo’s latest Vance story, suggesting the vice president hasn’t actually decided to run for president in 2028. Listen to find out why I’m skeptical about that — and why Vance’s team needs to be careful about giving other 2028 hopefuls an opening.
The latest with Kent, who continues to stir the pot by appearing on TUCKER CARLSON. Semafor scooped that he’d been under criminal investigation for leaking classified information — but why, then, did the administration have him on the payroll at all?
Subscribe to our new YouTube channel. Or, if you’re more of a listener rather than a watcher, subscribe to our show on Apple or Spotify.
