Gabbard Says She Checked Her ‘Personal’ Views ‘At the Door’ When Asked If Trump’s Iran War Is Constitutional

Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA) pushed Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard about whether or not she believes President Donald Trump’s war in Iran is legal and constitutional during a contentious House hearing on Thursday.

Gabbard appeared before the House Select Committee on Intelligence to discuss her latest threat assessment for the country.

Bera began his questioning by attacking the U.S. operation in Iran, saying, “President Trump has committed an illegal and unconstitutional act of war, pushing our nation headlong into a war with Iran without any authorization from Congress — a war that would be so costly and devastating it would make our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look like a picnic.”

He added:

On February 28th, 2026, the Trump administration, under which you are the president’s principal intelligence advisor, launched an illegal, unconstitutional act of war pushing our nation headlong into a war with Iran without any authorization from Congress.

This war has already been costly and devastating. Thirteen American service members have lost their lives, including Chief Warrant Officer Robert Marsden from my home of Sacramento, California. Approximately 200 service members have been wounded. The Pentagon reported that the first six days of Operation Epic Fury cost $11.3 billion. That averages almost $2 billion per day. That was the first six days, and now we’re in the 19th day of this war. That’s ballooned into a regional conflict, putting the lives of Americans and our allies throughout the Middle East in danger. Director Gabbard, do you still believe that strikes against Iran that don’t have congressional authorization constitute an illegal and unconstitutional act of war?

Gabbard, a former progressive, anti-war Democrat, replied, “Congressman, thank you for the question. The cost of war weighs very heavily upon me and my colleagues here, especially for those of us who have experienced and seen the cost of war firsthand. My own personal and political views—as I mentioned earlier, I was asked and required by Congress and by the president in this role as the Director of National Intelligence to check those views at the door—to ensure that the intelligence assessments are not colored by my personal views. And that’s exactly what I am responsible to deliver.”

Bera pressed on, “Do you still believe that war with Iran would be so costly and devastating that it would make our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look like a picnic?”

Gabbard replied again by dodging the substance of the question, “Once again, in this role, it is essential that I do not allow any of my personal views on any issues to color or bias the intelligence reporting that we deliver to you and to the president.”

“Director Gabbard, in this hearing one year ago, I asked some questions. And I’ll paraphrase my exact question. It’s that we should keep politics out of this, even if the president disagrees — a directive, if it goes against his personal wishes, if he’s considering an order that potentially is unconstitutional or illegal or compromises our security,” Bera continued, adding:

I want your word that you will always provide and give honest advice to the President, even if it will make him angry. I asked you that question. I’m going to read your answer to your specific question. The answer is yes: I will inform the President of accurate, timely, unbiased intelligence reporting, whether it is something that agrees with an assumption or a view or an objective or not. That’s my responsibility to him and to the American people. Director Gabbard, there is no imminent threat of nuclear breakout. Did you deliver that assessment to the president?

Gabbard replied, “I have delivered the intelligence community’s assessments to the president.”

“There was no imminent nuclear threat to the United States. There was not evidence of imminence that Iran was going to attack American assets — that was different from anything they’ve done over four decades,” Bera hit back, referring to the contentious claim Trump has made about the need to attack Iran.

“That was not going to attack our homeland. There was no imminent threat. Imminent is defined in the dictionary as something that is about to happen, not something that’s been happening for four decades, not something that was going to happen three months from now, not something that’s going to happen a year from now. Imminent means this is about to happen. Did you deliver that assessment to the president?” Bera pushed

Gabbard replied, “I deliver the intelligence community’s objective analysis of the threats, the severity of those threats, and the scope, along with assessments of the different scenarios and context.”

Watch the clip above via C-SPAN.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!