Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, announced her resignation, which will officially take effect on June 30. In a letter to President Donald Trump she explained her decision by saying she needs to care for her husband, who has been diagnosed with a rare form of bone cancer. While her statement expresses gratitude for the trust placed in her, many observers link her departure to growing disagreements with the president on key foreign-policy issues.
The main stumbling block was the stance on Iran. At congressional hearings, Gabbard said that Tehran’s nuclear program had been completely destroyed following U.S. strikes in 2025, and that the infrastructure was damaged to such an extent that recovery was out of the question. Trump, by contrast, called Iran an “imminent threat” and criticized Gabbard for being “soft” in her assessment of Iranian ambitions. That contradiction was one of the reasons the president, according to sources, began considering her resignation as early as March.
The problem, however, ran deeper: Gabbard consistently opposed military interventions not only in Iran but also in Venezuela, and took a pro-Russian stance on the conflict in Ukraine. This line led to her gradual isolation within the administration. For example, the military operation in Venezuela was carried out without her, and the decision to start a war with Iran was made without her participation, which directly indicates a loss of trust from the president.
Gabbard’s departure is seen as a landmark event for the MAGA movement: it marks the weakening of the anti-war wing, which previously had some influence. The Economist called the intelligence chief’s resignation evidence that the “hawks” — such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe — increasingly define Trump’s foreign policy, while skeptical voices are fading.
This personnel shift is only part of a broader trend. According to the Brookings Institution, turnover among Trump’s key advisers reached 34%: 23 of 68 senior officials have left their posts. Notably, Gabbard became the fourth woman to leave the administration in the past three months, after the Attorney General, the head of the World Bank, and the labor adviser.
In any case, regardless of the official explanation that she’s leaving for family reasons, Tulsi Gabbard’s resignation exposes a deep rift within the president’s team. It weakens the position of those who oppose military conflicts and shows that in the near term the U.S. course on the international stage may become even tougher and more confrontational.
News commentary
How extensive and what was the nature of Iran’s nuclear program before the 2025 strikes? (for example, uranium enrichment levels, presence of international inspections, underground facilities) — Before the 2025 strikes, Iran’s nuclear program had reached enrichment levels up to 60% (close to the weapons-grade 90%) at underground facilities in Fordow and Natanz. International IAEA inspections were limited due to Iranian restrictions, but continued in part. The program included an advanced centrifuge infrastructure (including modern IR-6 and IR-9 machines) and underground storage facilities protected from bombing, for example in the mountain beneath Fordow.
Which specific elements of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure (for example, Natanz, Fordow, Arak) were hit, and why is their restoration considered impossible? — Major sites were struck: Natanz (centrifuge manufacturing and storage), Fordow (underground enrichment plant) and Arak (heavy-water reactor). Their restoration is considered practically impossible due to targeted strikes on key structures (for example, destruction of foundations and cooling systems), and strategic damage to critical equipment that requires imported components and many years to reproduce. In addition, the strikes may have been aimed at power and ventilation sources, making repairs impractical.
How was Iran’s nuclear program linked to its regional influence through support for groups like Hezbollah or the Houthis, and did this change after the strikes? — The nuclear program served as a “security umbrella” for Iran’s proxy forces, such as Hezbollah (Lebanon) and the Houthis (Yemen), allowing them to act more aggressively under the protection of a potential nuclear response. After the destruction of the nuclear infrastructure in 2025, Iran’s regional influence weakened because the threat of a nuclear strike could no longer shield these allies. As a result, proxy activity declined, and some of these groups (like Hezbollah) faced reduced funding and military-technical support.
Full version: استقالة غابارد.. هل انتهى نفوذ التيار المناهض للحرب في إدارة ترمب؟