Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday to discuss worldwide threats, giving lawmakers a glimpse into intelligence assessments as the U.S.-Iran war enters its early weeks. In opening remarks and prepared testimony, she described Iran’s government as appearing intact but heavily degraded, and she spoke of the status of Iran’s nuclear program following U.S. strikes last year. But when senators turned to what President Donald Trump had been briefed on before the war and about potential fallout from it, Gabbard repeatedly declined to provide specifics about her conversations with the president.
In prepared remarks, Gabbard told the committee that U.S. attacks on Iran last year “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program and that there had been no effort since then to rebuild that capability. Her statement stood out, according to the hearing’s questioning, because Trump had repeatedly argued that a war with Iran was necessary to confront what he said was an imminent threat from the Islamic Republic.
Gabbard also worked to frame the intelligence community’s assessment of risk without directly endorsing the president’s reasoning. She said the intelligence community was not responsible for deciding what constitutes an imminent threat, telling the committee, “It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat.” Ossoff responded that it was “precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States.”
The hearing occurred at the start of the two annual congressional sessions in which lawmakers press intelligence agencies on threats, often drawing on classified or sensitive information but airing public portions of testimony. It also followed the resignation of Joe Kent as director of the National Counterterrorism Center on Tuesday, with Kent saying he could not “in good conscience” support the war and did not agree that Iran posed an imminent threat.
Senators pressed repeatedly for answers about the intelligence, if any, that had been given to Trump about the consequences of the war—particularly as Iran attacked Gulf nations and took steps that have affected shipping routes. Trump, lawmakers noted, has said he was surprised by Iran’s response to U.S. strikes and has pointed to the economic impact of the Strait of Hormuz being effectively closed. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on X that Trump was “fully briefed” about the possibility of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, and that the Pentagon had been planning for that possibility “for DECADES.”
Lawmakers said they remained focused on whether Trump understood the downside risk before decisions were made. “We’re trying to figure out if the president knew what the downside was of the Strait of Hormuz being closed,” Sen. Mark Kelly said during the hearing. Gabbard did not provide direct answers about what Trump was told, saying she would not divulge her conversations with him, while CIA Director John Ratcliffe told lawmakers that Trump had been in “countless briefings” with him.
The exchange also extended to the relationship between Gabbard’s written statement and her oral remarks. Warner noted that in her prepared written statement, submitted to the committee, Gabbard said Iran’s nuclear enrichment program had been obliterated in last year’s strikes, while her opening remarks on Wednesday did not use that exact language. Warner asked whether she omitted the reference to align with Trump’s imminent-threat claims, and Gabbard insisted she skipped portions of her written statement in the interest of time.
Ratcliffe also faced questions tied to Kent’s view that Iran was not an imminent threat. When asked whether intelligence supported Kent’s assessment, Ratcliffe said, “The intelligence reflects the contrary,” positioning the agency’s stance against Kent’s conclusion even as Trump sought to distance himself from Kent’s resignation.
In addition to Gabbard and Ratcliffe, other witnesses included the heads of the National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency and FBI Director Kash Patel. Patel was pressed about the terrorism threat after recent attacks, including an attack at an Old Dominion University classroom in Virginia by a man with a past terrorism conviction, and an attack in Michigan in which a Lebanese-born man drove a car into a synagogue.
Another topic surfaced during the broader session: questions about Gabbard’s role in a domestic law enforcement operation earlier this year. Warner said her appearance at an FBI search in January at the main election hub in Fulton County, Georgia, where agents seized voter data related to the 2020 presidential election, raised eyebrows because her office focuses on foreign threats. Warner described her presence there as part of an “organized effort to misuse her national security powers to interfere in domestic politics,” potentially providing a pretext for what he called unconstitutional efforts ahead of upcoming elections. Gabbard responded that she was present at the president’s request and did not participate, though she later said she helped oversee it.
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s session on threats offered few direct revelations for lawmakers who pressed for disclosure about what Trump knew and when. The committee was scheduled to hold another hearing on threats on Thursday, with the House Intelligence Committee also set to conduct its own session.