Senior U.S. intelligence officials faced sharp questioning on Capitol Hill during a high-stakes Senate hearing on global threats, with lawmakers zeroing in on the ongoing conflict with Iran, domestic security concerns, and the integrity of upcoming U.S. elections.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard repeatedly declined to discuss whether she warned President Donald Trump that Iran could retaliate by targeting Gulf nations or shutting down the Strait of Hormuz—a critical route for global energy supplies—if attacked. Pressed by lawmakers, she maintained: “I have not and won’t divulge internal conversations. I will say that those of us within the intelligence community continue to provide the president with all of the best objective intelligence available to inform his decisions.
Her reluctance frustrated Democratic senators, who sought clarity on whether the administration had anticipated Iran’s response. The hearing also unfolded against the backdrop of controversy surrounding a U.S. strike in Iran that reportedly hit an elementary school, killing more than 165 people. Lawmakers signaled they would examine whether outdated intelligence contributed to the incident, which the White House says is under review.
Internal disagreements have also surfaced, highlighted by the resignation of counterterrorism official Joe Kent, who said he could not “in good conscience” support the war. CIA Director John Ratcliffe pushed back, telling senators, “The intelligence reflects the contrary,” while Gabbard avoided directly stating whether Iran posed an “imminent threat,” saying that determination lies with the president. She did note that Iran’s military capabilities have been significantly weakened but warned the country could rebuild over time.
Gabbard, however, avoided directly answering whether Iran posed an “imminent threat,” telling lawmakers that determining such a threat ultimately rests with the president. That response drew pushback from senators who argued it is the intelligence community’s responsibility to assess national security risks.
In her broader assessment, Gabbard described Iran’s leadership as weakened but still standing, noting the country’s military capabilities have been significantly degraded. She warned that internal instability could grow as economic conditions worsen and suggested that, if the current regime endures, it may attempt to rebuild its military strength over time.
Beyond foreign policy, lawmakers raised concerns about domestic security following a string of violent incidents linked to extremist motivations, including attacks in Texas, Michigan, Virginia, and New York. Officials emphasized ongoing efforts to prevent further threats but acknowledged the heightened risk environment. When asked directly whether foreign threats to upcoming elections exist, Gabbard avoided a clear answer, instead pointing to broader intelligence priorities aligned with the administration’s national security strategy. That prompted a pointed exchange, with one senator noting that the lack of reporting could imply no threat exists—an assertion many lawmakers strongly dispute.
Gabbard also faced scrutiny over her involvement in domestic election-related activities, including her presence at an FBI search of an election office in Fulton County, Georgia. She said she attended at the president’s request but did not participate in the operation, explaining, “I did not participate in a law enforcement activity, nor would I, because that does not exist within my authorities.”
Meanwhile, FBI Director Kash Patel’s leadership has also come under the microscope, particularly after significant personnel changes within the bureau. Lawmakers expressed concern that the loss of experienced agents could weaken national security capabilities at a time of increasing threats.
Editorial credit: Maxim Elramsisy / Shutterstock.com
