(WASHINGTON) — For the first time since the start of the war, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard faced pointed questions Wednesday on whether Iran posed an “imminent threat” to the U.S. as President Donald Trump has maintained.
Lawmakers pressed Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, FBI Director Kash Patel and other national security officials on the conflict, and other global matters, on the intelligence community’s annual assessment of such worldwide threats on Capitol Hill.
The hearing came one day after the resignation of Joe Kent, the Trump administration’s top counterterrorism official, who stepped down over his objections to the war, arguing there was no “imminent threat” from Iran.
Gabbard says only Trump can determine an ‘imminent threat’ in contentious exchange
Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff pointedly questioned Gabbard about the intelligence community’s assessment on Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
President Trump previously said Iran’s nuclear program was “obliterated” by U.S. strikes last summer. Among its several justifications for the current war, however, the White House said Tehran posed an imminent nuclear threat.
“Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no?” Ossoff asked Gabbard.
“Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president,” Gabbard said.
Ossoff pushed back, accusing Gabbard of not answering directly because her response would contradict a statement from the White House.
“It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States. This is the worldwide threats hearing, where, as you noted in your opening testimony, you represent the [intelligence community’s] assessment of threats. You are here to represent the IC’s assessment of threats,” Ossoff said.
At another point in the hearing, CIA Director Ratcliffe said Iran has “been unwilling and incapable of enriching uranium to 60% as a result of” last summer’s strikes.
Lt. General James Adams, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, deferred questions about Iran’s existing nuclear capability and discussion about the possibility of U.S. boots on the ground to eliminate it to a classified session.
On Iran’s missile capabilities, Gabbard said Iran “previously demonstrated space launch and other technology it could use to begin to develop a militarily viable ICBM [Intercontinental Ballistic Missile] before 2035, should Tehran attempt to pursue that capability.”
Her remarks repeat an earlier assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency before the U.S. and Israel began the war on Iran on Feb. 28. Gabbard said the assessment would be updated with the impact of the administration’s military campaign “Operation Epic Fury.”
Gabbard says Iranian regime appears ‘intact’ but ‘largely degraded’
In her opening statement, Gabbard provided the latest intelligence community assessment on Iran.
On the country’s current leadership, Gabbard said the regime “appears to be intact, but largely degraded due to attacks.”
“Its conventional military power projection capabilities have largely been destroyed, leaving limited options. Iran’s strategic position has been significantly degraded,” she said.
She also warned that while “internal tensions are likely to increase” inside Iran as its “economy worsens.”
“If a hostile regime survives, it will likely seek to begin a yearslong effort to rebuild its military, missiles and UAV [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle] force,” Gabbard said.
CIA director pushes back on ex-counterterrorism official
Ratcliffe told senators that Iran “posed an immediate threat” when the U.S. decided to attack the country, pushing back on the statements made by Kent when he resigned.
Kent said in his resignation letter he could not “in good conscience” support the war and argued that Iran posed “no imminent threat” to the nation.
Asked whether he believed “Iran had ceased in its nuclear ambitions, or … its desire to continue to build ballistic missiles capable of threatening American troops and allies in the Middle East” by Republican Sen. Jon Cornyn, Ratcliffe said “the intelligence reflects the contrary.”
“So you disagree with Mr. Kent?” Cornyn asked.
“I do,” Ratcliffe said.
Cornyn did not put the question to Gabbard, Kent’s former boss.
“I think Iran has been a constant threat to the United States for an extended period of time, and posed an immediate threat at this time,” Ratcliffe said.
Officials pressed on planning for Strait of Hormuz, Gabbard sidesteps
Gabbard sidestepped questions on whether she briefed the president on a probable response from Iran — which has been now beared out with Iranian strikes against U.S. partners in the region and a closure of the critical Strait of Hormuz.
Asked by Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine, whether that contingency was “communicated to the president,” Gabbard would only say that the U.S. military took “preemptive planning” measures ahead of its attack.
She later acknowledged that it’s “long been an assessment of the IC that Iran would likely hold the Strait of Hormuz as leverage.”
“Did you brief the president, if he starts a war of choice, that the likely result would be that Iran would strike adjacent Gulf nations and close the Strait of Hormuz?” Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, asked Gabbard at one point.
“I have not and won’t divulge internal conversations,” Gabbard replied.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
