The White House is forcefully denying a new report that President Trump is preparing to fire Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard—just one day after ousting Attorney General Pam Bondi in a major Cabinet shakeup.
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung dismissed the report outright, saying Trump has “total confidence” in Gabbard and that “any insinuation otherwise is totally fake news.”
“The President has assembled the most talented and impactful Cabinet ever, and they have collectively delivered historic victories on behalf of the American people,” Cheung added in a post on X.
The response came after a report from The Guardian claimed Trump had begun quietly exploring Gabbard’s potential replacement, even polling Cabinet members about the idea.
According to the report, Trump has been privately frustrated with Gabbard’s handling of internal dissent—particularly her defense of former counterterrorism official Joe Kent, who resigned in protest over the administration’s military operations 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, shortly after U.S. and Israeli forces carried out joint strikes.
Gabbard, a longtime critic of U.S. intervention abroad, declined to publicly rebuke Kent—fueling tensions inside the administration. Trump has been “venting frustration that she shielded a former deputy who undercut his rationale for war with Iran, according to two people briefed on the discussions,” the report said.
Her recent congressional testimony added to the strain. When pressed by lawmakers, Gabbard refused to offer her personal view on the legality of the Iran strikes—a position consistent with her past skepticism of executive war powers, but one that reportedly irritated the president.
Despite the internal friction, it remains unclear whether Trump is prepared to act.
“It is not clear that Trump will actually fire Gabbard over the episode,” the report noted, adding that “currently, there is no standout candidate to take the job, and advisers have cautioned that creating a high-profile vacancy before a successor is ready could cause unhelpful political distractions.”
Trump himself has sent mixed signals. When asked aboard Air Force One whether he still had confidence in Gabbard, he offered only a lukewarm endorsement:
“Yeah, sure,” Trump said. “I mean, she’s a little bit different in her thought process than me, but that doesn’t make somebody not available to say it.”
The episode comes at a sensitive moment for the administration. Trump’s decision to remove Bondi marked the most significant personnel shakeup of his second term—and raised new questions about whether additional changes could follow.
For now, the White House is trying to shut down that narrative. But with tensions simmering over foreign policy—and Trump’s track record of abrupt personnel moves—the speculation is unlikely to fade anytime soon.
By Iran having nuclear bombs and long range missiles isn’t a threat to the U.S.?
How out of step can that belief be?
The Iranians previously clearly stated that, when they got them, they would certainly use them … on both Israel and on US!
I’d tend to believe that this would surely be an excellent reason to bomb the crap out of Iran BEFORE they could do it to us! That is a good reason to start a smaller war with the intent to stop a much larger one in the future … one that would most surely kill a GREAT MANY Americans!
If we hadn’t done this to Iran and they achieved the ability to do it to us ( which they would be able to do within a very few years ), the libs would be saying ‘why didn’t Trump stop them before they did this to us’!
If we had done something similar to Hitler in the mid 1930s, we probably could have avoided the 2nd WW!
In the words of a great prophet ( yeah, riiiight ) “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”.