US intel official says Iran's regime still intact but refuses to discuss talks with Trump about war

The statement was notable given Trump's repeated assertions that a war with Iran was necessary to head off what he said was an imminent threat from the Islamic Republic. Gabbard pointedly said that conclusion was the president's alone to draw as she declined to directly answer whether the intelligence community had likewise assessed that Iran's nuclear system presented an imminent risk to the United States.

“It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” she said at one point.

Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia shot back: “It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States.”

The testimony came at the first of two congressional hearings held each year to offer the public a glimpse into the largely secret operations of the government's intelligence agencies and the threats they confront.

The hearings this week take place at a time of scrutiny over the war with Iran and heightened concerns about terrorism at home after recent attacks at a Michigan synagogue and a Virginia university. Wednesday's hearing also came a day after the resignation of Joe Kent as director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Kent said he could not “in good conscience” back the war and did not agree that Iran posed an imminent threat.

But the hours-long hearing offered few revelations from Gabbard, who repeatedly declined to discuss conversations with Trump, or other senior intelligence officials who testified.

“I am very disappointed,” said an exasperated Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. “It's the only one time of year the public gets to hear from you guys in this kind of setting.”

Gabbard deflected questions about intelligence given to Trump

A frequent line of questioning for Democrats: What intelligence, if any, had been given to Trump about the war's potential consequences? Trump, for instance, has said he was surprised that Iran responded to strikes from the United States by attacking Arab nations and has been contending with the economic impact of the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a body of water connecting the Persian Gulf to the world’s oceans and a vital passageway for oil and gas.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a post on X that Trump was “fully briefed” on the possibility of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz and that the Pentagon has been planning for the possibility of Iran closing it “for DECADES.”

But Trump’s plan to secure the waterway is unclear, especially after he said this week that NATO and most other allies had rejected his calls to help secure it. Iran has said the strait is open except to the U.S. and its allies.

Democrats got few direct answers when they pressed administration officials on what Trump understood about that possibility, with Gabbard saying she would not divulge her conversations with him and CIA Director John Ratcliffe observing that he had been in countless briefings with the president.

“We’re trying to figure out if the president knew what the downside was of the Strait of Hormuz being closed,” said Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat. “Did he know this was going to happen or did he just disregard it?”

Gabbard appeared to try to thread a needle between emphasizing the intelligence community's views of Iran's risks — she said, for instance, that internal tensions would continue to increase even if the regime's leadership remained intact — and not completely echoing the president's arguments of an imminent threat.

At one point, Warner noted that Gabbard, in her prepared written statement submitted to the committee, said Iran’s nuclear enrichment program had been obliterated in strikes last year, but her opening remarks on Wednesday did not use that language.

He asked whether she had omitted that reference to conform to Trump's claims of an imminent threat. Gabbard insisted that she had skipped some of her written statement in the interest of time.

Trump has sought to distance himself from Kent. Ratcliffe tried to do the same Wednesday when he was asked whether intelligence supported Kent’s assessment that Iran was not an imminent threat. “The intelligence reflects the contrary,” Ratcliffe said.

Questions about other attacks and Gabbard's presence at an FBI search

Gabbard and Ratcliffe fielded the majority of questions, but other witnesses included the heads of the National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency, as well as FBI Director Kash Patel, who was pressed about the terrorism threat amid a spate of attacks this month. Those include a man with a past terrorism conviction who opened fire inside an Old Dominion University classroom in Virginia and a Lebanese-born man in Michigan who drove his car into a synagogue.

One subject that did not receive attention: a deadly missile strike on an elementary school in Iran, which people familiar with the matter have said the U.S. likely carried out as a result of outdated intelligence.

Apart from Iran, Gabbard was pressed on her presence at an FBI search in January of the main election hub in Fulton County, Georgia, where agents seized voter data related to the 2020 presidential election. Her appearance at a domestic law enforcement operation raised eyebrows given that Gabbard's office is meant to focus squarely on foreign threats.

Warner described her appearance there as part of an “organized effort to misuse her national security powers to interfere in domestic politics and potentially provide a pretext for the president’s unconstitutional efforts to seize control of the upcoming elections.”

Gabbard responded that she was present for the search at the request of the president but did not participate, though she later said she helped to oversee it.

The House Intelligence Committee will hold its own threats hearing on Thursday.

Associated Press writers Mike Catalini, Ben Finley and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.