During her Senate testimony on Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was asked by Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) to confirm details from her opening statement, in which Gabbard made clear that it was the assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community that Iran posed no imminent threat to the U.S., that Iran’s nuclear capability had been obliterated by U.S. attacks last June, and that Iran had made no effort since to rebuild its nuclear enrichment capability in the interim.
Gabbard’s explicit claim that Iran did not try to rebuild its nuclear capability — key to Ossoff’s questioning — were in direct contrast to President Trump’s February 28 remarks, when Trump used the word nuclear 11 times and said specifically that after June’s Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran “attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing the long range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland.”
Ossoff: So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer’s airstrikes?
Gabbard: Yes.
Ossoff: Your statement stated: there has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.… pic.twitter.com/VH9yEZgj7S
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 18, 2026
In the video clip above, Ossoff addressed Gabbard saying: “You noted in your opening statement that you’re here fulfilling a statutory obligation and that your testimony, quote, represents the IC’s assessment of threats.”
“That’s right,” Gabbard responded.
Ossoff then read from Gabbard’s opening statement, in which she explicitly asserted that — contrary to what President Trump personally determined before launching the attacks — the Intelligence Community (IC) did not consider Iran an imminent threat to the United States at this time, a position that aligned with the reasoning for the resignation this week of counterterrorism head Joe Kent, who worked under Gabbard.
Ossoff asked Gabbard to confirm the following: “That opening statement submitted to this committee in advance of this hearing stated that as a result of last summer’s airstrikes, quote, Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated.”
“That’s right,” Gabbard said, confirming that she was communicating the “assessment of the Intelligence Committee.”
Ossoff, seeking information as to whether that “obliteration” had been reversed by Iranian efforts in the intervening months, said to Gabbard: “And the opening statement you submitted to the committee last night also stated, quote, there has been no effort since then to rebuild their enrichment capability, end quote, correct?”
“That’s right,” Gabbard replied.
Ossoff cited a March 1 White House statement saying “this war was launched and was, quote, a military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, end quote.”
Gabbard replied that the Intelligence Community assessed that Iran “maintained the intention” to rebuild and continue to grow its nuclear enrichment capabilities.
Ossoff: Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?
Gabbard: The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president. It is not the intelligence community’s… pic.twitter.com/agcse87TZI
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 18, 2026
Asked by Ossoff for a “yes or no” answer as to whether the Iranian regime’s nuclear capability constituted an imminent threat as assessed by the IC, Gabbard replied: “The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president. It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat.”
“False,” Ossoff replied, saying it is “precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States. As you noted in your opening testimony, you are here to represent the IC’s assessment of threats.”
Gabbard gave a similar response when asked about Kent’s very public assertion that Iran posed no imminent threat to the U.S.
Without disputing Kent’s contention, Gabbard downplayed the ODNI’s and the IC’s role in ultimately determining a course of action, writing that Trump’s alleged voter mandate was a more significant factor than the work of American intelligence professionals.
“Donald Trump,” Gabbard wrote, “was overwhelmingly elected by the American people to be our President and Commander in Chief. As our Commander in Chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat, and whether or not to take action he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people and our country…The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is responsible for helping coordinate and integrate all intelligence to provide the President and Commander in Chief with the best information available to inform his decisions.”