Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard defended President Donald Trump during a tense Senate hearing, arguing that the authority to determine whether a foreign threat is imminent rests solely with the president. Her remarks came amid mounting criticism over the administration’s decision to initiate military action against Iran without first informing Congress, a move that has drawn backlash from lawmakers questioning both the intelligence justification and the process behind the operation.
Tulsi Gabbard on Iran:
— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 18, 2026
The only person who can determine what is or is not an imminent threat is the President. pic.twitter.com/nxQCYbSLtc
During the exchange, Gabbard was pressed repeatedly on whether the intelligence community had assessed Iran as posing an imminent nuclear threat prior to the conflict. In response, she emphasized presidential authority over such determinations. “Senator: Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a quote imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no? Tulsi Gabbard: Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president.”
The senator challenged that assertion, noting that the hearing was intended to present independent intelligence assessments to Congress. Gabbard maintained her position, reiterating that the intelligence community provides information but does not make final determinations. “Senator: False. This is the worldwide threats hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence, timely, objective, and independent of political considerations. Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that as the White House claimed on March 1st, there was a quote imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no? Tulsi Gabbard: Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has provided the inputs that make up this annual threat assessment. The nature of the imminent threat the president has to make that determination based on a collection and volume of intelligence that he is provided with.”
The exchange underscored a central point of controversy surrounding the administration’s actions: Gabbard’s insistence that only Trump could determine the existence of an imminent threat effectively placed responsibility for the decision to initiate conflict squarely with the president, rather than the intelligence community.
The conflict itself, known as Operation Epic Fury, was launched by U.S. Central Command with the stated objective of dismantling elements of Iran’s security apparatus deemed to pose a threat. As of March 18, 2026, the operation has involved more than 7,800 targets struck and approximately 8,000 combat flights. U.S. forces have deployed a wide range of assets across air, sea, and land, including B-2 stealth bombers, F-22 and F-35 fighter jets, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, guided-missile destroyers, and advanced missile defense systems such as Patriot and THAAD batteries.
Operation Epic Fury: March 18th Update pic.twitter.com/LPgEPadZYM
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) March 18, 2026
According to operational details, strikes have focused on command and control centers, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps headquarters and intelligence sites, ballistic missile infrastructure, and weapons production facilities. The scale and scope of the operation, combined with the administration’s decision not to brief Congress in advance, have intensified scrutiny on the justification for the conflict and the role of intelligence in shaping that decision, with Gabbard’s testimony placing the ultimate authority firmly in the hands of the president.