Gabbard says Iranian regime is "intact but largely degraded" at Senate hearing on threats to U.S.

Ossoff asked Gabbard when the president asked her to go the FBI raid in Fulton County, Georgia, to seize 2020 election ballots and records. 

"The day of the raid," she responded. 

She wouldn't disclose how the message was delivered, but said "it was a request from the president and his administration to go and help oversee this warrant being executed, along with the deputy director of the FBI."

During questioning from Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Gabbard reiterated that the intelligence community assessed that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was "obliterated" in last year's strikes — a portion of her written testimony she omitted from her opening statement.

"So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer's air strikes," Ossoff asked. 

"Yes," Gabbard said. 

Ossoff asked her whether there had been "no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability." 

"Correct?" he asked. 

"That's right," she said. 

Ossoff also asked her whether the intelligence community assessed that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the regime. Gabbard said Iran "maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment" and only the president "can determine what is and is not an imminent threat." 

"It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat," she said. "That is up to the president, based on a volume of information that he receives."

Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island asked Lt. Gen. James Adams, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, what conditions would need to be present to bring about regime collapse and whether it could be accomplished with air power alone. 

Adams said he would prefer to talk about conditions that would precipitate regime collapse in the closed-door hearing following the public session. 

"I understand, but there's a very basic question here. Will air power alone be able to destroy this regime?" Reed followed up. "Do you think air power alone will do it?" 

"Senator, the capabilities that our joint force brings to bear can accomplish many missions," Adams said. "To forecast exactly what can and can't accomplish this goal, I prefer not to guess or prognosticate on that." 

Kelly pressed Ratcliffe and Gabbard about a pro-Trump political action committee that sent a fundraising email last week offering "private national security briefings" for donors. The New York Times reported the group, Never Surrender, sent a fundraising email with an image of the president at a dignified transfer for fallen soldiers, offering "private national security briefings, unfiltered updates on the threats facing America."

"Director Gabbard or Director Ratcliffe, do you think the public should be able to, supporters of the president should be able to pay and receive his private national security briefings?" Kelly asked. "I assume these are briefings, Director Ratcliffe, that you provide to the president that is now going to be provided to somebody who makes a donation."

Ratcliffe said regardless of what that document says, "it didn't happen." He said the Hatch Act would prevent him from engaging in any such activity. 

Gabbard said she was "not familiar" with that document. 

Kelly said he would provide the fundraiser email to them. 

Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona asked Gabbard and Ratcliffe if they agree that "China and Russia are our primary geopolitical rivals."

"Yes, they are primary strategic competitors," Gabbard said, changing the wording from Kelly's question. 

"I would agree with that, although I don't think they're equal in terms of the threats that they pose," Ratcliffe said. 

Kelly brought up how the war with Iran has caused a "shock" to the world's global oil supply. 

"But not everybody is losing," Kelly said, asking if Russia has gained billions of dollars from rising oil prices and a pause on U.S. sanctions.

"That is what has been reported," Gabbard said, referring the question to the secretaries of the treasury and energy. 

"I'm not an economist," Ratcliffe said. "Not going to try and do those calculations. But as I talked about earlier, sometimes there are decisions made that will benefit adversaries at the same time policymakers think that it will benefit the American people."

Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado spent a majority of his time railing against the Trump's administration's shifting objectives of the war with Iran. He said "the war is not ending, it is escalating" and that the mission has "become less clear." 

"Iran's nuclear program is damaged, to be sure," Bennet said, "but it still has a uranium stockpile." 

He also predicted the conflict with Iran would become "a perpetual war because what Iran will do is exactly what they have always done."  

Ratcliffe accused Bennet of mischaracterizing the administration's goals. 

"The defined goals are very clear," Ratcliffe said, adding that the administration aims to destroy and degrade Iran's missile and drone inventory and its military industrial base. 

The two spoke over each other until Bennet asked the committee chairman to step in.  

"You're both big boys, you can handle yourselves," Cotton told them. 

Republican Sen. Jerry Moran expressed concern about the Iran war's impacts on the ability of the U.S. and its allies to support Ukraine against Russia. He asked Lt. Gen. James Adams, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, about the "consequences to the supply chain."

"How do we do both?" he asked. "Are we doing both? Is U.S. support maintained or diminished for Ukraine as a result of [Operation] Epic Fury?"

Adams said the DIA continues to "observe" what's happening around the world in other crises. 

"Unfortunately, for the situation there now, just based on the force composition and the delta between the Russian forces and the Ukrainian forces, the advantage is to the Russians," Adams testified. "As we get into the classified hearing, we can talk a little more specifically about the items with regards to supply chain." Adams referred further questions to the Pentagon. 

Moran asked Adams to be prepared for the classified portion of the hearing, which will take place after the public portion. 

"Our supply chain issues are not classified in the sense that every hearing I'm in as a defense appropriator has officials from the Department of Defense testifying about the need for further assistance," Moran said. "And really, I'm asking for the facts of what has happened as a result of Operation Epic Fury in the last few weeks in our supply to Ukraine and our NATO allies who are supplying Ukraine." 

Adams said efforts are underway to boost the defense industrial base capabilities and munitions.

Sen. Angus King of Maine, who identifies as an independent but caucuses with Democrats, asked Ratliffe and Gabbard if they were in the room when the president decided to strike Iran. 

"Senator King, probably in dozens and dozens of briefings with the president, I don't know that there was a single meeting where there was a single time where a decision was made," Ratcliffe responded. 

King asked more specifically about meetings in the roughly two weeks before the U.S. launched strikes. Ratcliffe said there were "countless meetings with the president" during that period. Gabbard said she was "likewise" present for such meetings. Ratcliffe said the president "gets briefings constantly about intelligence." 

"What I can tell you is that Iran had specific plans to hit U.S. interests in energy sites across the region, and that's why the Department of War and the Department of State took measures for force protection and personnel protection in advance of Operation Epic Fury," Ratcliffe said. "I think that's what's most important." 

Ratcliffe estimated he briefs the president, on average, "10 to 15 times a week." 

Ratcliffe told Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, that he disagreed with Joe Kent, who resigned from the National Counterterrorism Center on Tuesday over the Iran war. Kent said "Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation" and that he could not support the war. 

"Is there anything to indicate that Iran had ceased in its nuclear ambitions or in its desire to continue to build ballistic missiles capable of threatening American troops and allies in the Middle East?" Cornyn asked.

"No, in fact, the intelligence reflects the contrary," Ratcliffe said. 

"So you disagree with Mr. Kent?" Cornyn said. 

"I do," Ratcliffe said.

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon pressed Gabbard on what he called "foreseeable" and "predicted" consequences of striking Iran. Wyden brought up the intelligence agencies' assessment that Iran was capable of inflicting damage to attackers, executing regional strikes and disrupting the Strait of Hormuz. 

"Every problem we're seeing now was not only foreseeable but was predicted by the intelligence agencies," he said. 

Wyden asked if the intelligence agencies stuck to their assessment that Iran had the capability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz in the leadup to the war. 

"The intelligence community has continued to provide the president and his team with the intelligence related to this operation in Iran. Before, and on an ongoing basis," Gabbard said. 

Wyden asked if the intelligence agencies assessed Iran could respond by attacking U.S. forces. 

"The IC assessment has always taken very seriously the threat of the Iranian regime's missile capabilities and how our American troops in the region may be put at risk," Gabbard responded. 

Wyden pointed to the president's comments claiming no experts thought Iran could strike partners in the Gulf states. Wyden asked if the intelligence community assessed Iran could strike U.S. partners. 

"The intelligence community has continued to assess the potential threats to the region, the existing threats to the region, and providing those assessments to the policymakers and the decisionmakers," Gabbard responded. 

Warner pressed Gabbard on why she was spotted in late January at a law enforcement search of the elections office in Fulton County, Georgia. Her presence raised alarm among Democrats, who questioned why the intelligence chief was involved in domestic law enforcement operations. 

"Where is the authority for you to involve yourself in a domestic law enforcement activity?" Warner asked. 

Gabbard said she "did not participate in a law enforcement activity, nor would I, because that does not exist within my authorities." Gabbard said she was there at the request of the president "and to work with the FBI to observe this action." She said she was "not aware of what was in the warrant."

Warner also noted that the ODNI's 2026 annual threat assessment is the first report since 2017 that "didn't even mention foreign interference." 

"Are you saying there is no foreign threat to our elections in our midterms this year?" Warner asked. 

Gabbard said the annual assessment "matches the prioritization of threats," but did not directly answer the question. 

"I would draw the conclusion there must be no foreign threat to our elections in 2026," Warner said.  

Ratcliffe, the director of the CIA, discussed the agency's contributions to recent U.S. operations, such as in Venezuela and Iran. During his confirmation hearing, Ratcliffe said he promised a more aggressive CIA focused on core mission, "getting back to the business of stealing secrets to be able to provide our policymakers with a decisive strategic advantage that would allow and advance and contribute to foreign policy and national security successes."

"To the credit of the CIA workforce, the CIA has delivered," Ratcliffe told Cotton. "Some of those successes have been very public. As you mention, senator, Operation Midnight Hammer, Operation Absolute Resolve. Flawless military operations like that are hostage to a flawless intelligence picture."

Ratcliffee said foreign intelligence collection has significantly increased in key areas like China, counternarcotics, AI and counterterrorism. 

Cotton asked Ratcliffe about Iran's abilities to hit the U.S. in as little as six months, without intervention. 

Eventually, "if left unimpeded, yes, senator, they would have the ability to range missiles to the continental U.S." 

Ratcliffe didn't give an exact timeline for when that would be possible. But he said that's why degrading Iran's capabilities "is so important to our national security."

In the written version of her opening statement that the committee posted on its website, Gabbard said: "As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. The entrances to the underground facilities that were bombed have been buried and shuttered with cement."

But she omitted that passage in her spoken remarks. Warner asked her why.

"Was that because the president said there was an imminent threat?" Warner said. 

"I recognized that time was running long, and I skipped through some of the portion you chose," Gabbard said. 

Warner said she chose to omit part of the assessment that contradicts the president.  

Gabbard said the intelligence community assesses that the sustained strikes against Iran have diminished the regime's power, though it remains capable of attacking U.S. interests in the Middle East. 

"The regime in Iran appears to be intact but largely degraded due to attacks on its leadership and military capabilities," she said in her opening statement. "Its conventional military power projection capabilities have largely been destroyed, leaving limited options. Iran's strategic position has been significantly degraded." 

She continued: "Even so, Iran and its proxies remain capable of and continue to attack U.S. and allied interests in the Middle East. The IC assesses that if a hostile regime survives, it will seek to begin a yearslong effort to rebuild its missiles and UAV forces."

Gabbard started her testimony by telling those watching that her testimony "conveys the intelligence community's assessment of the threats facing U.S. citizens, our homeland and interests, not my personal views or opinions." 

In his opening statement, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the committee, claimed Gabbard's office is falling short in protecting U.S. elections from foreign interference, accusing Gabbard of an "organized effort to misuse her national security powers to interfere in domestic politics … and provide a pretext for the president's unconstitutional efforts to seize control of the upcoming elections."

"For months, the committee has repeatedly requested briefings from the IC, briefings that are required by law, on legitimate foreign threats to the midterms," Warner said. "We have received no response."

The Virginia Democrat accused Gabbard of misusing her authority to "interfere" in domestic politics, highlighting her presence at a law enforcement operation to seize election ballots and voting machine records in Fulton County, Georgia. Fulton County, which Mr. Trump lost in 2020, has long been a source of frustration for the president. Gabbard told lawmakers the president requested her presence. 

"When the warrant supporting the raid was unsealed, it showed something deeply troubling: there was no foreign connection to justify the involvement of our nation's top spy," Warner said.

"This raises one very serious question — if the intelligence community is not being deployed, mobilized against foreign threats, why is it being deployed at all on a domestic issue? The DNI's appearance at this raid, as well as her involvement in seizing voting machines from Puerto Rico, suggests something that should also alarm every American: I believe 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."

Turning to the FBI, Warner also said agents working on a task force focused on threats from Iran, "clearly something that's pretty damn important right now," were "dismissed because they had previously participated in the investigation of the president's mishandling of classified information." 

Warner also criticized the administration's evacuation of Americans in the Middle East.

"This was a foreseeable security crisis," Warner said. "When you start a war of choice, when there was no imminent threat, you should be able to prepare to make sure you get Americans out of the war zone." 

Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, the Republican chairman of the committee, opened the hearing by praising the military operations in Iran and Venezuela that toppled the previous leadership. 

Cotton said Iran's regime "is finally knocked on its back foot." 

"After 47 years of indecision and timidity, America has finally put our foot down," he said. 

He also pointed to the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January.  

"Let this be a warning to those who wish America harm, we leave no stone unturned, and there's no one or no thing close to you that might not betray you." 

Moments ahead of the hearing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked on Fox News whether the president has full confidence in Gabbard. 

"He does, yes, and we look forward to watching the director's hearings today," Leavitt said 

Gabbard had not spoken publicly about the war with Iran since it began until she posted her statement following Kent's resignation. 

In the past, Gabbard voiced strong opposition to intervening militarily in Iran. 

"President Trump promised us during his campaign to get the United States out of 'stupid wars,'" Gabbard said in a 2019 ad when she was running for president, featuring multiple statements from Mr. Trump about avoiding wars in the Middle East. "... But he's on the brink of launching a very stupid and costly war with Iran. We have to stop President Trump from starting a war with Iran." 

She never took down that X post, which was one of multiple comments Gabbard made voicing her opposition to conflict with the Islamic Republic. "No War With Iran," Gabbard wrote on Jan. 7, 2020. She also advertised t-shirts that said, "No War With Iran." 

Gabbard's precisely worded statement in the wake of Kent's resignation Tuesday did not express personal support for the war. She said it's up to the president to determine what constitutes an "imminent threat," and the president made that determination.

Joe Kent, who led the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned Tuesday, saying he "cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran." 

"Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby," Kent wrote in his resignation letter to Mr. Trump. 

Kent accused high-ranking Israeli officials and some in the media of waging a "misinformation campaign" that was "used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory." 

"This was a lie," he said, urging Mr. Trump to "reflect upon what we are doing in Iran, and who we are doing it for." 

In a post on X, Gabbard appeared to respond to Kent's letter, saying the president "is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat." 

"After carefully reviewing all the information before him, President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat and he took action based on that conclusion," she said. 

Nearly a year before the U.S. launched the current war against Iran, the intelligence community said in its annual assessment that it continued "to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon" and that then-Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had not reauthorized the program, "though pressure has probably built on him to do so." 

"Khamenei continues to desire to avoid embroiling Iran in an expanded, direct conflict with the United States and its allies," the March 2025 report said. 

A few months later, the U.S. became involved in the 12-day war between Iran and Israel, bombing three Iranian nuclear sites, which Mr. Trump claimed had "obliterated" its nuclear program. 

Since the latest bombing campaign against Iran began on Feb. 28, which killed Khamenei, Mr. Trump and other administration officials have claimed that the regime posed an "imminent" threat to the U.S. 

The 2025 assessment also warned that Iran had fielded a large number of ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as unmanned drones, that had the ability to strike throughout the region. 

"Iran's large conventional forces are capable of inflicting substantial damage to an attacker, executing regional strikes, and disrupting shipping, particularly energy supplies, through the Strait of Hormuz," the report said. 

Mr. Trump's spy chiefs will testify to the Senate Intelligence Committee at its annual hearing on global security threats facing the U.S. 

Their appearance comes as Democratic lawmakers call for Trump administration officials — specifically Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — to answer questions in public about the rationale for the war with Iran and the administration's endgame. 

Instead, it will be Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, FBI Director Kash Patel, National Security Agency chief Lt. Gen. William Hartman and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. James Adams in the hot seat as the timeline for the end of the war remains unclear, justifications for the military operation have shifted and U.S. allies are reluctant to get involved. 

The annual hearing typically focuses on threats from China, Russia and Iran, though last year's hearing was dominated by a Signal chat in which Trump officials discussed sensitive details about military strikes in Yemen.