
Israel-Iran ConflictLive Updates: Israel and Iran Trade New Strikes on 9th Day of War
President Trump was angry.
Earlier this month, Tulsi Gabbard, his director of national intelligence, had posted a three-and-half-minute video to social media describing her visit to Hiroshima, Japan, and outlining the horrors caused by the detonation of a nuclear weapon there 80 years ago.
Speaking directly to the camera, Ms. Gabbard warned that the threat of nuclear war remained. 'As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before,' she said, 'political elites and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tension between nuclear powers.'
Mr. Trump berated Ms. Gabbard for the video, according to two people briefed on the conversation. He said that her discussion of nuclear annihilation would scare people and that officials should not talk about it.
Mr. Trump's displeasure with the video laid bare months of his skepticism of Ms. Gabbard and frustrations with her. The president and some administration officials viewed her overseas travel, as the video exemplified, as being as much about self-promotion of her political career as it was about the business of government, multiple officials said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics of the administration.
But the tensions surrounding Ms. Gabbard are now in the open, as Mr. Trump considers mounting a military strike on Iran. Ms. Gabbard, a critic of overseas entanglements, has privately raised concerns of a wider war. And on Friday Mr. Trump said 'she's wrong' when he was asked about her testimony in March that Iran had not decided to build a nuclear weapon.
After the video was posted, the president also told Ms. Gabbard that he was disappointed in her, and wished she had used better judgment, according to one of the two people briefed on the conversation. He told Ms. Gabbard that he believed she was using her time working for him to set herself up for higher office. Mr. Trump told Ms. Gabbard that if she wanted to run for president, she should not be in the administration, one of the people briefed on the meeting said.
Image
Ms. Gabbard and her husband, Abraham Williams, at her swearing-in at the White House in February.
Credit...
Eric Lee/The New York Times
While Ms. Gabbard is a former Democrat, her credentials as a critic of America's long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and as a skeptic of foreign military interventions appeal to Mr. Trump's base, and her views dovetail with those of some of his other advisers. Her supporters are openly advocating that the president keep her.
'The president needs someone who will give him the right intelligence information, whether he likes it or not,' said Daniel L. Davis, an analyst at the think tank Defense Priorities, which advocates a restrained foreign policy. 'If you put someone else in there, they might only tell him what he wants to hear.'
Mr. Davis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, was Ms. Gabbard's choice for a top intelligence role before criticism from Republicans over his skepticism of Israel's war in Gaza forced her to rescind the appointment.
There is no question, officials said, that Ms. Gabbard's standing has been weakened and that she is embattled. But few in the administration want to see her depart. Some say she has people who like her, while others worry about who might replace her. Two officials said that Mr. Trump's anger over the video had faded and that they were back on better terms.
Ms. Gabbard continues to brief the president regularly and speaks often to John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, who held Ms. Gabbard's job in the first Trump administration, according to multiple officials.
In a statement, the White House press office dismissed any notion she has been sidelined. Steven Cheung, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Trump had 'full confidence' in his national security team. 'D.N.I. Gabbard is an important member of the president's team and her work continues to serve him and this country well,' Mr. Cheung said.
Ms. Gabbard was an aggressive supporter of Mr. Trump on the 2024 campaign trail. He and his top advisers valued her input, especially when Mr. Trump was preparing to debate Vice President Kamala Harris — whom Ms. Gabbard had memorably attacked in a Democratic primary debate in 2019.
After the election, Mr. Trump quickly decided to nominate her for director of national intelligence. But from the beginning he made clear to associates that he harbored some doubts. Mr. Trump, according to associates, saw her as overly interested in her own success.
Mr. Trump drew a contrast between Ms. Gabbard and the other former Democrat he named to his cabinet, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
'Bobby's a star,' Mr. Trump told one associate. 'Tulsi? Tulsi wants to be a star.' Mr. Trump's implication was that unlike Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Gabbard did not have what it took to succeed in politics.
Image
Ms. Gabbard with Mr. Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tucker Carlson during a campaign event in Georgia in October.
Credit...
Kenny Holston/The New York Times
And soon after her swearing-in, he began to complain about her effectiveness.
At the same time, Mr. Trump — long mistrustful of the intelligence community — questioned whether there needed to be an Office of the Director of National Intelligence at all.
A senior intelligence official said Ms. Gabbard had overseen a 25 percent cut in the size of her office. And Ms. Gabbard has repeatedly told people in the White House that she is willing to be the last director of national intelligence, according to an official. The office, Ms. Gabbard said, could be reabsorbed into the C.I.A., or become something akin to the National Security Council, a bare-bones oversight group.
At least for a time, the kind of foreign policy restraint Ms. Gabbard favors appeared to gain traction this spring.
In White House discussions about Israel and Iran, Ms. Gabbard raised the range of possible consequences of an Israeli strike against Iran, saying it could trigger a wider conflict that brought in the United States. Vice President JD Vance, at times also a skeptic of military intervention, made similar arguments and was among those who supported Mr. Trump's impulse to initially try to negotiate a deal with Iran.
As the C.I.A. delivered intelligence reports that Israel intended to strike Iran regardless, Mr. Trump and senior aides became more publicly supportive of the Israeli campaign.
Ms. Gabbard did not attend a key meeting at Camp David, where Mr. Ratcliffe presented assessments about Iran's nuclear program. Ms. Gabbard, according to officials, was on Army Reserve duty. Other people with knowledge of the matter have said she was not invited. (Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Ms. Gabbard had met daily with Mr. Trump and his team.)
Then on Tuesday, Mr. Trump contradicted Ms. Gabbard in public. After the Israeli strikes began, a journalist on Air Force One asked Mr. Trump about Ms. Gabbard's testimony in March that Iran had not decided to make a nuclear bomb.
'I don't care what she said,' Mr. Trump said. 'I think they were very close to having it.'
He made similar comments on Friday.
Image
Mr. Trump, aboard Air Force One this week, contradicted Ms. Gabbard's assessment of Iran's nuclear program.
Credit...
Kenny Holston/The New York Times
An official from Ms. Gabbard's office said her position was not at odds with Mr. Trump's. In her testimony, Ms. Gabbard reported the consensus opinion of the intelligence community: that Iran's supreme leader had not authorized the country to build a nuclear weapon. But Ms. Gabbard had also noted Iran's large stocks of enriched uranium and a shift in tone that was 'likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus.'
But Mr. Trump's Air Force One remark came off as a rebuke.
To a certain extent, some officials said, courting Mr. Trump's displeasure is a hazard of any intelligence job in his administration.
Mr. Trump believes the intelligence community undermined him in his first term, and his long-held skepticism that it is part of a disloyal deep state continues. Ms. Gabbard, when briefing Mr. Trump, presents a range of options and assessments. But it is difficult to talk about the findings of spy agencies and not raise Mr. Trump's ire, the official said.
Ms. Gabbard's most important job as director of national intelligence is overseeing, and delivering, the president's daily intelligence brief. But the brief is actually produced a few miles from her office at the C.I.A., and many of those working on the document are detailed from the agency. Ms. Gabbard announced internally last month that she would physically move the production of the brief to her headquarters, known as Liberty Crossing.
Within the administration, several senior officials saw it as a way to try to enhance her own relevance at a time when Mr. Trump was questioning the relevance of the office. Others said it was an expensive decision that would be logistically difficult to carry out.
Ultimately, the White House put the move on pause, according to multiple people briefed on the matter.
Ms. Gabbard has influential defenders inside and outside the government. Mr. Vance, seen as the most senior voice for a less hawkish, more restrained foreign policy, issued a long social media post defending the administration's support of Israel's attack on Iran. He added to that a message supporting Ms. Gabbard. He also released a statement calling her a 'patriot.'
Her supporters insist that she remains relevant and that, over time, her skepticism of American intervention in Ukraine and caution on military action against Iran will once more prevail. The possible delay of any decision by Mr. Trump to strike Iran represents an opportunity for diplomacy and critics of American military intervention to make the case for restraint, some of Ms. Gabbard's supporters said.
Olivia C. Coleman, a spokeswoman for Ms. Gabbard's office, dismissed the reports of dissatisfaction or tensions with the White House as 'lies made up by bored, irrelevant anonymous sources with nothing better to do than sow fake division.'
'The director,' Ms. Coleman said, 'remains focused on her mission: providing accurate and actionable intelligence to the president, cleaning up the deep state and keeping the American people safe, secure and free.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump delay of Iran bombing decision by two weeks puts U.S. markets into holding pattern
Trump's two-week delay on an Iran bombing decision has generated uncertainty that is holding investors (and businesses) back from making decisions. While the 'fear index' dropped, U.S. markets still slid slightly in premarket trading. Investors didn't exactly breathe a sigh of relief after President Trump postponed a decision on bombing Iran for two weeks. U.S. stock futures dipped about 0.2% across the board after the Juneteenth holiday, reflecting unease not just over a potential war—but over indecision as well. The issue? Investors didn't read the two-week delay as an opening for diplomacy that would avoid the most catastrophic outcome: a bombed Iran blocking critical petroleum shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and sending oil to $130. Instead, they viewed it as kicking the can down the road. The fear isn't escalation per se—it's prolonged uncertainty, with no concrete resolution in sight. 'That means two weeks of uncertainty for financial markets, but investors are still inclined to see the Middle East conflict as a local, not a global, economic issue,' UBS chief economist Paul Donovan said in a morning note seen by Fortune. Indeed, while shares in U.S. markets traded sideways Friday morning (as they have year to date), shares in Europe and parts of Asia rose (as they have year to date). Hong Kong's Hang Seng and India's Nifty 50 both jumped 1.3% on the day, while in midday trading the STOXX Europe 600 and London's FTSE rose 0.6%—and Germany's DAX posted a 1% rise. For the year, the S&P 500 is up 1.7% while the STOXX Europe 600 is up 5.6%. 'The Middle East tensions represent another potential adverse shock to a fairly weak economy,' Nicola Nobile, Oxford Economics' chief Italy economist, wrote in a Friday note about the eurozone economy. 'As we have shown, even the most severe scenario for oil prices would have a manageable impact on economic activity.' The divergence in sentiment comes down to uncertainty. Trump's delay mirrors a broader pattern—on tariffs, TikTok (he signed another 90-day divestment extension Thursday), and now Iran. The so-called TACO trade (Trump Always Chickens Out) may be catchy, but for markets, it signals a lack of clarity that causes executives and investors to stall. On Friday, the VIX—Wall Street's fear gauge—fell 7.9% after Thursday's spike on war talk. Still, it's up 18% on the year. Here's a snapshot of the action across global markets this morning: South Korea's Kospi was up 1.5%. India's Nifty 50 was up 1.3%. U.S. markets were closed yesterday for Juneteenth. S&P 500 futures were down 0.2% in premarket trading today. The U.K.'s FTSE 100 rose 0.6% in midday trading. China's Composite was down 0.1%. Japan's Nikkei 225 was down 0.2%. Hong Kong's Hang Seng was up 1.3%. This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Poll shows Trump's clash with courts puts Senate GOP on defense
New polling of likely voters in Senate battleground states has found President Trump's frequent clashes with federal courts are becoming a hot issue that could put Senate Republican candidates on the defensive in 2026. A poll of 1,000 likely voters in 2026 Senate battlegrounds, obtained exclusively by The Hill, found that 53 percent disapprove of Trump's handling of the courts, including 89 percent of Democrats, 55 percent of independents and 39 percent of self-identified non-MAGA Republicans. The poll was conducted by Global Strategy Group, a Democratic-aligned polling firm, on behalf of Demand Justice, a Democratic-aligned judicial advocacy group. The survey found that more than two-thirds of voters, 72 percent, said they are concerned about Trump's response to court orders and 48 percent said they were extremely concerned by what they saw as the president's refusal to obey court orders. The poll found that 68 percent of voters surveyed said they viewed congressional Republicans as helping Trump evade legal norms, and 44 percent said they viewed that dynamic as extremely concerning. It surveyed voters in Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas. The Senate's two most vulnerable Republican incumbents are Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) is the chamber's most vulnerable Democrat. 'The data is clear: Americans increasingly reject Donald Trump's attacks on the rule of law and the courts. Over two-thirds are concerned about this blatant disregard for court orders and the threat that it poses to the rights of every person in this country,' said Maggie Jo Buchanan, the interim executive director of Demand Justice. 'When Trump treats judicial rulings as mere suggestions instead of legally binding obligations, it sends a chilling message that our legal protections are meaningless,' Buchanan added. 'An overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum are concerned that this calculated defiance sets a precedent where individuals may face unfair trials, see their rights disregarded without consequence, and find themselves powerless to seek justice,' she added. U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia James Boasberg criticized the Trump administration earlier this year for disregarding his order to stop the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. The administration argued the deportation flights had already departed the United States at the time Boasberg issued his order and asserted they later complied with a written order. The Trump White House has also come under criticism for barring a reporter and photographer from The Associated Press from the Oval Office in April despite a court order from U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Trevor McFadden ruling the government could not retaliate against the news agency for refusing to follow Trump's order renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The poll also found 70 percent of voters that Trump's allies in Congress will help him pick judges who will do what he wants instead of acting independently, with 43 percent of respondents saying they're 'extremely' concerned. The poll's sample included 44 percent of self-identified Democrats, 44 percent of self-identified Republicans and 12 percent of self-identified independents. It was conducted between May 28 and June 1 and had a margin of error of 3.1 percent. Updated at 8:43 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Social Security's 2026 Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Estimate Is Getting a "Trump Bump" -- Here's How Much Extra You Might Receive
As many as nine out of 10 retirees rely on their Social Security income to cover some portion of their expenses. Estimates for Social Security's 2026 cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) are climbing, and President Trump's tariff and trade policy looks to be the culprit. Though an above-average COLA for a fifth-consecutive year would be welcome on paper, retirees continue to get the short end of the stick when it comes to annual raises. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Last month, Social Security's retired-worker benefit made history, with the average payout topping $2,000 for the first time since the program's inception. Although this represents a modest monthly benefit, it's nevertheless proved vital to helping aging workers cover their expenses. In each of the prior 23 years, pollster Gallup surveyed retirees about their reliance on the Social Security income they're receiving. Between 80% and 90% of respondents noted it was a "major" or "minor" income source. In other words, only around one in 10 retirees could, in theory, make do without their Social Security check. For an overwhelming majority of Social Security beneficiaries, nothing is more important than knowing precisely how much they'll receive each month -- and that begins with the program's annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), which is announced during the second week of October. This year's COLA announcement will be of particular interest, with President Donald Trump's tariff and trade policies expected to directly affect how much Social Security beneficiaries will receive per month in 2026. But before digging into the specifics of how President Trump's policies are expected to impact the pocketbooks of seniors, survivors, and workers with disabilities, it's important to understand the building blocks of what Social Security's COLA is and why it matters. The program's COLA is effectively the "raise" passed along on a near-annual basis that accounts for the impact of inflation (rising prices) on benefits. For example, if a large basket of goods and services increased in cost by 3% from one year to the next, Social Security benefits would need to climb by a commensurate amount, or buying power for Social Security recipients would decrease. In the 35 years following the issuance of the first retired-worker check in January 1940, COLAs were assigned at random by special sessions of Congress. Only a total of 11 COLAs were passed along during this timeline, with no adjustments made in the 1940s. Beginning in 1975, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) was adopted as Social Security's inflationary measure that would allow for annual cost-of-living adjustments. The CPI-W has over 200 spending categories, each of which has its own unique percentage weighting. These weightings are what allow the CPI-W to be expressed as a single figure each month, which leads to crisp month-to-month and year-to-year comparisons to see if prices are, collectively, rising (inflation) or declining (deflation). When calculating Social Security's COLA, only CPI-W readings from the third quarter (July through September) are taken into consideration. If the average CPI-W reading in the third quarter of the current year is higher than the comparable period of the previous year, inflation has occurred, and beneficiaries are due for a beefier payout. Following a decade of anemic raises in the 2010s -- three years during the decade (2010, 2011, and 2016) saw no COLA passed along due to deflation -- beneficiaries have enjoyed four consecutive years of above-average cost-of-living adjustments and are hoping for this streak to continue. A historic increase in U.S. money supply during the COVID-19 pandemic sent the prevailing rate of inflation soaring to a four-decade high. This resulted in COLAs of 5.9% in 2022, 8.7% in 2023, 3.2% in 2024, and 2.5% in 2025, respectively. For context, the average annual increase in benefits since 2010 is 2.3%. While estimates for Social Security's 2026 cost-of-living adjustment came in below this average shortly after President Donald Trump took office for his nonconsecutive second term, the script has now been flipped. Nonpartisan senior advocacy group The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) was forecasting a 2.2% COLA for 2026 as recently as March. Meanwhile, independent Social Security and Medicare policy analyst Mary Johnson, who retired from TSCL last year, was calling for a 2.2% increase in April following the release of the March inflation report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). After the release of the May inflation report from the BLS, both TSCL and Johnson are now forecasting a 2026 COLA of 2.5%. A 2.5% COLA would increase the average retired-worker benefit by $50 per month next year, as well as lift monthly checks for the typical worker with disabilities and survivor beneficiary by $40 and $39, respectively. This 0.3% increase in both forecasts over the past couple of months is estimated to boost the average Social Security payout (for all beneficiaries) by approximately $5.57 per month in 2026. This "Trump bump" is the result of the president's tariff and trade policies having a very modest inflationary impact on domestic prices. Charging a global import duty on all countries while imposing higher "reciprocal tariff rates" on dozens of countries that have historically run adverse trade imbalances with the U.S. can result in these higher costs being passed along to consumers. Though a lot can change with Trump's tariff and trade policy in the coming weeks and months, its current design points to a modest bump in the 2026 COLA. On paper, a fifth consecutive year where COLAs are above average (compared to the previous 16 years) probably sounds great. With the average retired-worker payout cresting $2,000 per month, an added $50 per month would be welcome in 2026. But the fact of the matter is that a 0.3% bump in COLA estimates since Trump introduced his tariff and trade policy doesn't remotely move the needle when it comes to what retirees have been shortchanged for more than a decade. Though the CPI-W is designed to be an all-encompassing measure of inflation, it has an inherent flaw that can be seen in its full name. Specifically, it tracks the spending habits of "urban wage earners and clerical workers," who, in many instances, are working-age Americans not currently receiving a Social Security benefit. Urban wage earners and clerical workers spend their money very differently than seniors. Whereas the former has a higher percentage of their monthly budgets devoted to things like education, apparel, and transportation, seniors spend a higher percentage on shelter and medical care services. Even though an overwhelming majority of Social Security beneficiaries are aged 62 and above, the CPI-W doesn't factor in this added importance of shelter and medical care services inflation. The end result for retirees has been a persistent decline in the buying power of a Social Security dollar. According to a study conducted by TSCL, the purchasing power of a Social Security dollar has dropped by 20% since 2010. A very modest "Trump bump" isn't going to offset this. What's more, the aforementioned two costs that matter most to retirees -- shelter and medical care services -- have had higher trailing-12-month (TTM) inflation rates than the annually issued Social Security COLA. The BLS inflation report for May showed TTM increases of 3.9% for shelter and 3% for medical care services, respectively. As long as the program's cost-of-living adjustment trails the annual inflation rate for these two key expenses, retirees will continue getting the short end of the stick. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security's 2026 Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Estimate Is Getting a "Trump Bump" -- Here's How Much Extra You Might Receive was originally published by The Motley Fool