Trump dismisses Gabbard's testimony on Iran nukes: "I don't care what she said"
President Trump on Tuesday said Iran was "very close" to having a nuclear weapon, despite March testimony from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Tehran was not building one.
The big picture: His comments, which critics see as shirking his DNI's own assessment, came after he sent shockwaves through the Middle East with a Monday Truth Social post calling for the evacuation of Tehran.
Israel bombed Iran's nuclear and missile sites during a wave of attacks Thursday, from which the U.S. distanced itself.
An IDF official claimed that in recent weeks, Israel had indications that Iran was racing for a nuclear bomb, Axios' Barak Ravid and Dave Lawler reported. Iran denies it is pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Driving the news: When pressed on Gabbard's assessment by reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump replied, "I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having" a nuclear weapon.
Trump has repeatedly stressed the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. Israel wants the administration's help by joining the war against Iran to destroy its nuclear program.
Gabbard, during her opening remarks at a House Intelligence Committee hearing in late March, said that "[t]he IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003."
She added, "We continue to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program."
What they're saying: A senior intelligence official told Axios' Marc Caputo that Trump's statement does not conflict with Gabbard's testimony because he said the Iranians are "very close" to getting a nuclear weapon and she had said that Iran doesn't yet have one.
"There's a distinction. Just because they don't have one does not mean that they don't want to build one," the official said.
A spokeswoman for Gabbard pointed to her remarks to reporters saying she's "on the same page" as Trump and faulting "too many people in the media" for what she said were misconstrued remarks.
Catch up quick: Trump on Monday urged "[e]veryone" to evacuate Tehran shortly after the White House announced he would be leaving the G7 summit early.
It wasn't immediately obvious what triggered the post, in which Trump demanded "IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON."
Asked the reasoning behind his call for an evacuation, Trump said Tuesday, "I just want people to be safe."
Zoom out: Trump told reporters he wanted a "real end" to the conflict, rather than a "ceasefire."
Asked if he was open to negotiating with the Iranians, Trump stressed Tehran "should have done the deal" and added, "I'm not too much in a mood to negotiate."
But Axios' Barak Ravid and Marc Caputo reported Tuesday that the White House is discussing the possibility of a meeting between U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
23 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Senate Wants Billions More in Medicaid Cuts, Pinching States and Infuriating Hospitals
The Senate policy bill released Monday would cut billions of dollars more from Medicaid than the earlier, House-passed legislation — in large part by cracking down on a budgeting maneuver used by 49 states that congressional Republicans have called a scam or gimmick. It does this by limiting Medicaid provider taxes, a loophole that states use to collect more federal matching funds for Medicaid, an insurance program for the poor that covers roughly 70 million Americans. For decades, taxing providers like hospitals has been a major part of how states pay Medicaid bills, but this tactic has come under scrutiny in Congress this year as Republicans look for ways to help pay for President Trump's tax cuts. Cutting provider taxes would probably mean funding shortfalls of hundreds of billions of dollars for states over the next decade, leaving them with budget holes to fill. To offset the losses, states would most likely need to explore cutting other services or raising other taxes. In scaling back Medicaid provider taxes, Senate Republicans are pursuing cuts that their House colleagues were hesitant to propose. House members had landed on freezing provider tax rates at current levels instead of reducing them. If the Senate passes its plan for provider taxes, the House and the Senate will have to reconcile their differences. The basic way Medicaid payments work A state pays a hospital $1,000 for a patient's medical expenses. The federal government reimburses the state a share of the amount, in this case 60 percent. $1,000 payment $600 reimbursement State government $400 paid on net Federal government Local hospital How states use provider taxes A state pays a hospital a higher amount, but charges some of it back in taxes, in this case $30. The federal government calculates its share based on the original payment. The state can keep the extra money. $1,030 payment $618 reimbursement $30 tax State government $382 paid on net The tax generates an additional $18 for the state. Federal government Local hospital The basic way Medicaid payments work How states use provider taxes A state pays a hospital $1,000 for a patient's medical expenses. The federal government reimburses the state a share of the amount, in this case 60 percent. A state pays a hospital a higher amount, but charges some of it back in taxes, in this case $30. The federal government calculates its share based on the original payment. The state can keep the extra money. $1,030 payment $1,000 payment $600 reimbursement $618 reimbursement $30 tax State government State government $400 paid on net $382 paid on net The tax generates an additional $18 for the state. Federal government Local hospital Federal government Local hospital The basic way Medicaid payments work A state pays a hospital $1,000 for a patient's medical expenses. The federal government reimburses the state a share of the amount, in this case 60 percent. $1,000 payment $600 reimbursement State government $400 paid on net Federal government Local hospital How states use provider taxes A state pays a hospital a higher amount, but charges some of it back in taxes, in this case $30. The federal government calculates its share based on the original payment. The state can keep the extra money. $1,030 payment $618 reimbursement $30 tax State government $382 paid on net The tax generates an additional $18 for the state. Federal government Local hospital Note: States pay different shares of Medicaid costs. This example illustrates when a state pays 40 percent, a common scenario. The New York Times Estimated share of federal Medicaid funding from hospital and nursing home taxes 0% 10% 20% 30% Wash. Maine Mont. N.D. Minn. Vt. Ore. N.H. Idaho Wis. N.Y. S.D. Mich. Wyo. Conn. Pa. Iowa N.J. Neb. Nev. Ohio Md. Ill. Ind. Utah Colo. Calif. Va. Kan. Mo. Ky. N.C. Tenn. Okla. Ariz. Ark. S.C. N.M. Ala. Ga. Miss. La. Texas Alaska Fla. Hawaii Estimated share of federal Medicaid funding from hospital and nursing home taxes 0% 10% 20% 30% Wash. Maine Mont. N.D. Minn. Vt. Ore. N.H. Idaho Wis. S.D. N.Y. Mass. R.I. Conn. Mich. Wyo. Pa. N.J. Iowa Neb. Nev. Ohio Del. Md. Ill. Ind. Utah Colo. Va. Calif. Mo. Kan. Ky. N.C. Tenn. Okla. Ariz. Ark. N.M. S.C. Ga. Ala. Miss. La. Texas Alaska Fla. Hawaii Source: The Hilltop Institute This map underestimates the effect of provider taxes in the Dakotas, which tax other health care providers, and North Carolina, which recently made major policy changes. The New York Times Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Bloomberg
24 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Plays Down Iran-Israel Truce as He Leaves G-7 Early
Donald Trump abruptly exited the G-7 summit in Canada, deepening questions about the US president's promise to bring peace. Stephanie Lai explains. (Source: Bloomberg)
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Asked to Hear Challenge to Trump's Global Tariffs
(Bloomberg) -- Two family-owned toy companies are asking the US Supreme Court to consider striking down many of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, putting a high-stakes fight with worldwide economic implications before the justices for the first time. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' As Part of a $45 Billion Push, ICE Prepares for a Vast Expansion of Detention Space How E-Scooters Conquered (Most of) Europe As American Architects Gather in Boston, Retrofits Are All the Rage Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown The request filed Tuesday seeks to put the case on an expedited track with the possibility of a definitive Supreme Court ruling by the end of the year. The filing asks the justices to take the unusual step of considering the case without waiting for a federal appeals court to rule. Learning Resources Inc. and hand2mind Inc. said the issue of Trump's tariff authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act is so economically weighty that the justices should intervene immediately. 'In light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the president claims, challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process,' the Chicago-area companies argued. A federal appeals court in a separate case has said the tariffs could stay in effect until that panel hears arguments July 31. Trump has portrayed tariffs as critical to leveling the playing field for American businesses and workers amid chronic trade deficits. 'The Trump administration is legally using the powers granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to address our country's national emergencies of persistent goods trade deficits and drug trafficking,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said. 'If the Supreme Court decides to hear this unfounded legal challenge, we look forward to ultimately prevailing.' The filing comes in what until now had been a relatively low-profile case. US District Judge Rudolph Contreras in Washington said Trump exceeded his authority under IEEPA, though the judge limited the May 29 ruling to the two companies pressing the suit. Fast Track The Trump administration then appealed, and the companies are now asking the Supreme Court to directly review Contreras' ruling. The companies suggested the justices decide before their summer recess starts in about two weeks whether to hear the case, with arguments in September or October. The US Court of International Trade declared Trump's global tariffs unlawful in May in a separate case that also centers on the president's powers under IEEPA. The law says the president may 'regulate' the 'importation' of property when needed to 'deal with' an emergency. Contreras said that language doesn't authorize the president to impose import taxes. 'The power to regulate is not the power to tax,' he wrote. Both court clashes cover Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs — which combine a universal baseline levy of 10% with potentially much bigger rates for various trading partners. Each suit also concerns separate import taxes over fentanyl trafficking. The toy-company case challenges trafficking tariffs imposed against China, while the Court of International Trade case also concerns similar taxes on imports from Canada and Mexico. Supply Chain The toy companies' chief executive officer, Rick Woldenberg, said in an interview that his businesses were now having to devote 30% of their office staff to navigating tariff issues. 'We've had extraordinary expenses, dramatically shifting our supply chain basically overnight — a supply chain we built over 40 years,' he said. 'I feel like a refugee from a war, where we're sort of loading everything up in the donkey cart and going to a safer place, not really knowing if the safer place we're going to is really safe.' The April 2 tariffs represented the biggest increase in US import taxes since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley levies, taking the country's average applied tariff rate to its highest level in more than a century. Global markets have fluctuated wildly since Trump's tariff announcement. Since then, trillions of dollars in market value have been shed and regained amid weeks of delays, reversals and announcements about potential trade deals, particularly with China. Trump's own 90-day pause on most of his sweeping 'reciprocal' tariffs is set to expire on July 9, when rates would increase drastically for many nations, absent trade deals or a further extension. Goods from the European Union, for instance, are facing a 50% levy. Trump's tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles were imposed under a different law, so are not directly affected by the case now before the Supreme Court. Administration officials have publicly downplayed the impact of the litigation by saying that most of the tariffs can be imposed by other means. The case is Learning Resources v. Trump, 24-1287. --With assistance from Laura Curtis, Shawn Donnan and Akayla Gardner. (Updates with White House response in seventh paragraph.) Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros How a Tiny Middleman Could Access Two-Factor Login Codes From Tech Giants American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software US Allies and Adversaries Are Dodging Trump's Tariff Threats ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
