Trump Blasts Tulsi Gabbard as ‘Wrong' About Iran Nuclear Capabilities
The U.S. intelligence community has stood by its opinion that Iran has a large stockpile of enriched uranium but isn't close to building a nuclear weapon, but the president disputes that.
A reporter asked the president what intelligence he had that Iran was building a weapon, because his intelligence community did not have evidence.
'Well then my intelligence community is wrong,' Trump said before asking the reporter who in his intelligence community had said that.
When Gabbard was named, Trump blasted back: 'She's wrong.'
It was the president's most direct criticism of his own director of national intelligence after he also told reporters on Tuesday he did not care what Gabbard had said about Iran's nuclear capabilities.
Gabbard testified before Congress in March that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, but the president rejected that this week, and said he believes Iran is close to having a weapon.
Earlier this week, the White House posted a video of Gabbard testifying on Iran, but it did not include her explicitly stating the U.S. intel community did not believe Iran was building a nuclear weapon.
The president was speaking to reporters Friday afternoon after arriving in Morristown, New Jersey, to attend a Friday-evening fundraiser at his golf club.
It was Trump's first public comment since he announced in a statement that he would make a decision on the U.S. getting involved in Iran within two weeks, as the conflict with Israel escalates.
'We're ready, willing, and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens,' Trump said.
Trump indicated the two-week deadline was his decided-upon timeframe to see if people 'come to their senses.'
Trump said he was open to a ceasefire while potential negotiations take place but did not call for one directly.
'It's very hard to stop,' Trump said. 'Israel's doing well in terms of war, and I think you would say that Iran is doing less well. It's a little bit hard to get somebody to stop.'
The president would not talk about the possibility of sending in ground forces, but he did say it was the last thing he'd want to do.
The president said he's 'always a peacemaker' but argued it doesn't mean you don't need 'toughness to make some peace.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump to check out Federal Reserve's pricey renovations
The Federal Reserve, known for its tight lips, structured formality and extraordinary power to shape the global economy, finds itself putting out the welcome mat for President Donald Trump. Trump and his allies say a $US2.5 billion ($A3.8 billion) renovation of the Fed headquarters and a neighbouring building reflects an institution run amok — a belief they hope to verify in a Thursday afternoon tour of the construction site. The Fed allowed reporters to tour the building before the visit by Trump, who in his real estate career, has bragged about his lavish spending on architectural accoutrements that gave a Versailles-like golden flair to his buildings. The visit is an attempt to further ratchet up pressure on Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whom the Republican president has relentlessly attacked for not cutting borrowing costs. Trump's attacks have put the Fed, a historically independent institution, under a harsh spotlight. Undermining its independence could reduce the Fed's ability to calm financial markets and stabilise the US economy. "This stubborn guy at the Fed just doesn't get it — Never did, and never will," Trump said Wednesday on Truth Social. "The Board should act, but they don't have the Courage to do so!" On Thursday, reporters wound through cement mixers, front loaders, and plastic pipes as they got a close-up view of the active construction site that encompasses the Fed's historic headquarters, known as the Marriner S Eccles building, and a second building across 20th Street in Washington. Fed staff pointed out new blast-resistant windows and seismic walls that were needed to comply with modern building codes and security standards set out by the Department of Homeland Security. The Fed has to build with the highest level of security in mind, Fed staff said, including something called "progressive collapse," in which only parts of the building would fall if hit with explosives. Sensitivity to the president's pending visit among Fed staff was high during the tour. Reporters were ushered into a small room outside the Fed's boardroom, where 19 officials meet eight times a year to decide whether to change short-term interest rates. The room, which will have a security booth, is oval-shaped, and someone had written "Oval Office" on plywood walls. The Fed staff downplayed the inscription as a joke. When reporters returned through the room later, it had been painted over. Plans for the renovation were first approved by the Fed's governing board in 2017. Fed staff also said tariffs and inflationary increases in building material costs also drove up costs. Trump in 2018 imposed a 25 per cent duty on steel and 10 per cent on aluminum. Steel prices are up about 60 per cent since the plans were approved in June, while construction materials costs overall are up about 50 per cent, according to government data. Fed staff also pointed to the complication of historic renovations — both buildings have significant preservation needs. Constructing a new building on an empty site would have been cheaper. The Fed has previously attributed much of the project's cost to underground construction. It is also adding three underground levels of parking for its second building. Initially, the central bank proposed building more above ground, but ran into Washington, DC's height restrictions, forcing more underground construction. When construction began in 2022, the Fed estimated the cost at $US1.9 billion ($A2.9 billion), and it has since grown by about 30 per cent. Trump wants Powell to dramatically slash the Fed's benchmark interest rate under the belief that inflation is not a problem, but Powell wants to see how Trump's tariffs impact the economy before making any rate cuts that could potentially cause inflation to accelerate. The renovation project has emerged as the possible justification by Trump to take the extraordinary step of firing Powell for cause, an act that some administration officials have played down, given that the Fed chair's term ends in May 2026. Pushing Powell out also would almost certainly jolt global markets, potentially having the opposite effect that Trump wants as he pushes for lower borrowing costs. When asked last week if the costly rebuilding could be grounds to fire Powell, Trump said, "I think it sort of is". Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Post
17 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump assassination attempt suspect Ryan Routh can represent himself at trial, federal judge rules
The man charged with trying to assassinate President Donald Trump at one of his Florida golf courses last year was given clearance by a federal judge Thursday to represent himself in his upcoming trial. Ryan Routh appeared in front of U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon in Fort Pierce a day after his court-appointed attorneys asked to be removed from the case. However, Cannon ruled that Routh's attorneys must remain on standby and denied their request to be withdrawn. Prior to allowing Routh to represent himself, Cannon told him that his court-appointed attorneys 'will defend you far better than you can defend yourself' and 'I strongly urge you not to make this decision.' 'These are nice ladies… How [can] they defend me and say I'm not a dangerous person if they're afraid of me?' Routh said at one point. 'They don't appreciate me and they're afraid of me.' The attorneys described Routh's claims as untrue. The 59-year-old was wearing beige jail scrubs and appeared disheveled during the court appearance, during which he was taking notes despite being shackled at the wrists. 6 Ryan Routh was given clearance by a federal judge Thursday to represent himself in his upcoming trial. X/Ryan_wesleyrouth 'Mr. Routh has now refused six attempts from members of our office/the defense team to meet with Mr. Routh. As a result, undersigned counsel submits that the attorney-client relationship is irreconcilably broken. It is clear that Mr. Routh wishes to represent himself, and he is within his Constitutional rights to make such a demand,' the lawyers wrote in a filing late Wednesday night. The lawyers added that they went to speak with Routh on Tuesday at the Federal Detention Center in Miami, but were informed that Routh didn't want to meet with them. Routh is charged with attempting to assassinate Donald Trump, assaulting a federal officer, and multiple firearms violations for the Sept. 15, 2024, incident in Florida, the second attempted assassination plot against Trump in a matter of months. 6 Ryan Routh was pictured following his arrest in Martin County, Florida, on September 15. MARTIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE/AFP via Getty Images 6 The photo shows a sniper's nest that Routh made, according to reports. US District Court Southern Florida 6 Routh is charged with attempting to assassinate Donald Trump, assaulting a federal officer, and multiple firearms violations for the Sept. 15, 2024, incident in Florida. Martin County Sheriff's Office He has pleaded not guilty. Fox News Digital reported earlier this month that Routh wrote an unusual letter to the judge asking why the death penalty isn't on the table — and proposing that he be included in a prisoner swap with U.S. adversaries, even suggesting he be sent to freeze in Siberia in exchange for a Ukrainian soldier. 'Why is the death penalty not allowed? At nearly 60, a life of nothingness without love — what is the point? Why is it not all or nothing?' Routh wrote in the letter on the case docket. 6 Routh's assassination attempt was the second attempt on Donald Trump's life. Getty Images 'I had wished for a prisoner swap with Hamas, Iran… or China for Jimmy Lai or one of the 40 others, or to freeze to death in Siberia in exchange for a Ukrainian soldier… so I could die being of some use and save all this court mess.' He then sarcastically adds that the judge could send him away, which would give Trump a symbolic win. 'Perhaps you [Judge Cannon] have the power to trade me away… An easy diplomatic victory for Trump to give an American he hates to China, Iran, or North Korea… everyone wins.' 6 Prior to allowing Routh (pictured) to represent himself, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon told him that his court-appointed attorneys 'will defend you far better than you can defend yourself' and 'I strongly urge you not to make this decision.' Routh blasted his legal team, accusing them of ignoring his questions, refusing to write to him, and undermining him. 'It was ridiculous from the outset to consider a random stranger that knows nothing of who I am to speak for me… I will be representing myself moving forward,' Routh wrote. 'They do not want the case and I no longer want to listen to how horrible a person I am — I can beat my own self up; I do not need help.' 'Best I walk alone.'
Forbes
18 minutes ago
- Forbes
To Win Or Not To Win The AI Race. The Question To End All Questions
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 23: U.S. President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order during the ... More "Winning the AI Race" summit hosted by All‑In Podcast and Hill & Valley Forum at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on July 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump signed executive orders related to his Artificial Intelligence Action Plan during the event. (Photo by) When President Donald Trump announced Winning the AI Race: America's AI Action Plan yesterday, he said something we should all remember: 'America is the country that started the AI race. And as president of the United States, I'm here today to declare that America is going to win it.' These are important words to remember because it may be the last time, Trump and his Big Tech partners in Silicon Valley acknowledge that AI wasn't always a question of winning or losing a race. To Win Or Not To Win Is Not The Only Question Once AI was a philosophical question – one that religious and spiritual thinkers from ancient cultures asked to better understand the laws of nature. Later it became a scientific question – one that English mathematicians and computer scientitsts asked to transcend the laws of nature. And lately, it has become everyone's question – one that ethicists, policy makers, journalists, educators, you, and I ask to protect the nature in and around us that AI threatens to replace. But – Trump claims – AI is no longer a question. It's a race. A race started by America that America is going to win. Why? Because, as Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, puts it, 'winning the AI race is non-negotiable.' And once something is non-negotiable, all questions about it ends. So what are the questions America's AI Action Plan is designed to end? And why is it important that we keep asking them? The AI Race Ends Questions About Regulations The plan identifies over 90 Federal policy actions across three pillars – Accelerating Innovation, Building American AI Infrastructure, and Leading in International Diplomacy and Security. One key policy is enabling innovation and adoption by 'removing onerous Federal regulations that hinder AI development and deployment, and seek private sector input on rules to remove.' In yesterday's summit Trump commented on this initiative, saying the AI industry is 'a beautiful baby that's born.' 'We have to grow that baby and let that baby thrive. We can't stop it. We can't stop it with politics, we can't stop it with foolish rules,' Trump said. Talking about AI development as something that cannot be stopped is one thing. Comparing the tech industry with a baby whose growth and well-being we are responsible for is another. And maybe that's where our questions should start: Where our understanding of nature meets our understanding of technology. Is it the same to be 'born to think' and to be 'built to think'? Do babies and AI technologies follow the same laws of nature? Do they have the same constraints? And can the questions asked by philosophers, religious thinkers, and scientists in the past guide us in navigating the need for restrictions and regulations in the future? At the AI Action Plan summit, President Trump said the tech industry is 'a beautiful baby" that we ... More have to grow and let thrive. (Photo by Joe Mahoney) The AI Race Ends Questions About Existential Risks According to the White House's website, 'winning the AI race will usher in a new golden age of human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security for the American people.' But it doesn't say what this golden age of human flourishing should look like. In fact, the Trump administration's understanding of AI seems to built on the idea that technology can and should be neutral. No human ideas and ideals. Just pure innovation. Or, as it says in the plan's 'upholding free speech in frontier models' section: Federal procurement guidelines must be updated to 'ensure that the government only contracts with frontier language model developers who ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down idealogical bias.' But this idea that technology can and should be neutral can and should be questioned. For decades the developers of first the internet and then social media have promised us free speech and systems that are objective and free from top-down idealogical bias. And for decades, we have seen an increase in mental health problems caused by misinformation and polarization. So, maybe that's the questions we must ask: How does it impact humans to think and talk about technology as something that doesn't impact humans? Is it possible to let the tech industry grow and thrive and at the same time take responsibility for human growth and well-being? Or will a country that prioritizes to be front runners in building technological systems eventually lose sight of what it takes to build human systems, e.g. in terms of education, health, and ultimately democracy? The AI Race Ends Questions About Global Collaboration 'Whether we like it or not, we're suddenly engaged in a fast-paced competition to build and define this groundbreaking technology that will determine so much about the future of civilization itself,' Trump said at the AI Action Plan event. To prepare for this future, the government will partner with US tech companies to make 'full stack AI export packages' — AI models, hardware and software — available to American ally countries. As reported by CNN, this partnership aims at making US technology the global standard, something Silicon Valley leaders have called for to ensure the United States remains an AI leader. But if AI really is this 'groundbreaking technology that will determine so much about the future of civilization itself', other countries are not looking to the US for a 'full stack AI export package'. And they are certainly not looking to Silicon Valley for global leadership and standards. Dealing with a groundbreaking technology that will determine the future of civilization itself calls for everyone to work together. And that calls for all of us to ask: Should staying ahead of China be the top priority for the American administration right now? Or does AI call for an intergovernmental organization like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that promotes the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technology? Established in 1957, IAEA was not influenced by Big Tech. The Agency's genesis was President Eisenhower's 'Atoms for Peace' address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on 8 December 1953. Is that what the world needs from the president of the United States? Not a declaration that America is going to win a race it started itself. And not a full stack AI export package. But an 'AI for Peace' address that crystallizes the hope that the groundbreaking development of AI 'may lead to the unifying of the entire divided world' (Eisenhower's words about the splitting of the atom)? To win or not to win the AI race is not the only question. There are many questions and none of them should be answered by one president of one country. Least of all in a plan designed to be non-negotiable.
