President Trump’s bold strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities has exposed cracks in his intelligence team. On June 28, 2025, the Pentagon executed a meticulously planned operation, rooted in 15 years of intelligence, to neutralize Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
The New York Post reported that Trump’s decision to target Iran’s nuclear sites followed a Camp David meeting on June 8, 2025, where heavyweights like CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth hashed out the plan.
Gabbard, notably, wasn’t invited. This omission raises eyebrows about her influence in a White House that thrives on loyalty and decisive action.
Two days later, on June 10, Gabbard released a video warning of nuclear war’s perils, a move one administration source called “fear-mongering.”
The timing suggests she was critiquing the very strike Trump was planning. Such public dissent, even if veiled, doesn’t sit well in a MAGA-driven administration that prizes unity.
Clashing Views on Iran’s Threat
Trump and Gabbard clashed openly on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. On June 17, 2025, aboard Air Force One, Trump declared Iran was “very close to having” a nuclear bomb, directly contradicting Gabbard’s claim that Tehran hadn’t yet decided to build one. “I don’t care what she said,” Trump said, signaling his dismissal of her assessment.
Gabbard’s absence continued at a critical intelligence briefing with Congress on June 26, 2025, where Ratcliffe took the lead in sharing classified strike details.
Her no-show fueled speculation that Ratcliffe, a former Texas congressman, is eclipsing her role in shaping intelligence strategy. The CIA director’s rising star could dim Gabbard’s once-bright prospects.
Despite these tensions, Gabbard was in the Situation Room during the June 28 bombing mission. A White House official, spotting her the day before briefing Trump, dismissed talk of her being sidelined as “bogus.” This insider’s optimism, though, feels like a Band-Aid on a deeper wound in the administration’s cohesion.
Gabbard’s history colors her current predicament. In 2020, as a Democratic presidential candidate, she sold “No War With Iran” T-shirts after Trump ordered the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. That anti-interventionist stance, while endearing her to Trump’s 2024 base over shared foreign policy skepticism, now seems at odds with his aggressive Iran strategy.
Her endorsement of Trump in 2024 was rooted in rejecting regime-change wars pushed by Democrats and pre-Trump Republicans. Yet, her warnings about nuclear escalation echo the same dovish rhetoric that administration hawks now decry. It’s a tightrope walk, and Gabbard’s balance is faltering.
Insiders insist Gabbard isn’t on the chopping block, citing Trump’s newfound patience with dissenting aides in 2025.
Unlike his first term, where heads rolled swiftly, Trump has made no cabinet changes this year, save for reassigning Mike Waltz to U.N. ambassador after a messaging blunder. This tolerance might keep Gabbard afloat, for now.
Power Struggles in Intelligence
Ratcliffe’s growing clout is a thorn in Gabbard’s side. As CIA director, he’s steering intelligence priorities, potentially marginalizing Gabbard’s role as Director of National Intelligence. “She’s been wrong on the big stuff,” an administration official told The Post, a jab that underscores her waning influence.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton is also tightening the screws, pushing to slash Gabbard’s staff from 1,600 to 650, per a senior Senate aide on June 27, 2025. Such a cut would kneecap her operational reach. Cotton’s move signals broader Republican skepticism about Gabbard’s alignment with Trump’s vision.
The Pentagon’s release of footage showing 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs tested for the Iran strikes underscores the operation’s gravity.
Gabbard’s absence from its planning stages paints her as out of step with Trump’s decisive action. Her video warning of nuclear war, one source said, “played directly into the hands” of strike opponents.
Gabbard’s office stayed mum, offering no comment on the brewing controversy. Her silence contrasts with the administration’s vocal defense of the strikes, amplifying perceptions of her isolation. A stronger voice might have quelled doubts, but Gabbard’s reticence speaks volumes.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Benjamin Clark
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://americandigest.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
