Tulsi Gabbard, the nation's top intelligence official, announced her resignation on Friday in a letter to President Donald Trump, citing her husband's diagnosis with a serious and rare form of bone cancer. She said her last day would be June 30.
Gabbard posted the letter on X, writing that Abraham Williams' condition required her to step back from public service. "At this time, I must step away from public service to be by his side and fully support him through this battle," she wrote. Trump responded on Truth Social, praising her work and expressing confidence in her husband's recovery.
The departure marks the exit of the fourth Cabinet member from Trump's second administration, all women. Her resignation comes after months of visible tension within the intelligence community and between Gabbard and other top officials.
Aaron Lukas, the principal deputy director of national security, will assume the role of acting intelligence chief.
Gabbard's tenure had been marked by friction with CIA Director John Ratcliffe and a pattern of decisions that alarmed career intelligence officials. In August, she disclosed the name of an undercover CIA officer on a list of people whose security clearances she revoked, a move that alarmed the agency's workforce. She also declassified a lightly redacted document about Russian election interference without consulting the CIA, according to reporting. Her spokesperson denied she had failed to consult the agency in both instances.
The former Democratic congresswoman had clashed with the Trump administration over military intervention in Iran. When Trump ordered airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites in June, Gabbard appeared uncomfortable at congressional intelligence hearings. She had previously testified in March that intelligence showed Iran had not revived a nuclear weapons program, a position Trump dismissed. "I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one," he stated.
Gabbard's hesitation over the Iran decision contrasted sharply with other Cabinet officials' support. Joe Kent, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned in protest over the military action, citing the absence of an "imminent threat." Both Kent and Gabbard were military veterans who shared anti-interventionist views. According to sources familiar with the discussions, allies who opposed foreign military interventions appealed to Gabbard to resign alongside Kent or beforehand, but she declined.
The intelligence chief had never fully integrated into Trump's inner circle. During critical moments when the president deliberated military action or monitored live video feeds of operations overseas, Gabbard was often absent from the room, underscoring her outsider status within the administration.
Gabbard's nomination to lead the intelligence community had sparked fierce opposition from Democrats and nonpartisan national security figures. Nearly 100 former diplomats, intelligence officials, and national security experts from both parties signed a letter expressing alarm at her candidacy. Critics pointed to her past sympathetic statements toward U.S. adversaries including Russia and the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. In 2017, she made an unannounced trip to Syria to meet Assad, a decision that drew bipartisan criticism at the time.
Gabbard defended her record and statements, characterizing herself as a victim of attacks by a "war-mongering establishment" that could not tolerate her opposition to military interventions. As a congresswoman and Democratic presidential candidate, she had positioned herself as a fierce critic of what she called America's misguided overseas military operations, including wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and U.S. support for rebels in Libya and Syria.
She was confirmed to the intelligence post in a narrow party-line vote of 52-48, with former Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky casting the sole GOP vote against her.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "Gabbard's departure may finally resolve the contradiction that defined her tenure, but it raises uncomfortable questions about whether an ideological outsider can ever function effectively inside a Cabinet that doesn't share her worldview."
Comments