President Donald Trump reportedly came "dangerously close" to dismissing Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard, following escalating frustrations over her stance on the Iran conflict and her handling of a deputy's resignation. The near-firing was reportedly averted by a last-minute intervention from Roger Stone, a long-time advisor to President Trump, according to recent reports. The internal conflict underscores the significant foreign policy divisions within the administration that continue to surface publicly.
"Fortunately, I acted in time." — Roger Stone, Longtime Trump Adviser
Sources indicate that President Trump's frustration with Gabbard intensified after her congressional testimony, during which she reportedly did not fully endorse his administration's approach to Iran. Behind closed doors, President Trump allegedly "scolded" Gabbard and questioned her loyalty to his broader agenda. Accounts from officials present during these exchanges varied, with some describing the president's tone as harsh, while others suggested it was more sarcastic than overtly aggressive. Regardless of the exact tenor, the situation reportedly escalated rapidly.
President Trump reportedly went as far as polling members of his cabinet on the potential removal of Gabbard from her DNI position. At one point, a decision to dismiss her appeared imminent. It was at this critical juncture that Roger Stone, who has advised President Trump since 1979, reportedly intervened. An X post by Stone, stating, "Fortunately, I acted in time," signaled his direct involvement in preventing the dismissal.
A source close to President Trump was quoted saying, "Roger sealed the deal. He saved Tulsi," describing Stone's decisive intervention. Stone reportedly presented a detailed argument for retaining Gabbard. He asserted that Gabbard had maintained her loyalty, managed her congressional testimony with discipline, and had not publicly broken with the president's directives.
More significantly, Stone reportedly cautioned President Trump about the potential political repercussions of firing Gabbard. He argued that such a move could trigger a considerable media backlash and elevate Gabbard's public profile, potentially turning her into a "martyr" among certain segments of the MAGA base, particularly those already expressing unease about the ongoing Iran conflict. Stone further warned that dismissing Gabbard could inadvertently boost her credibility and even position her as a future presidential contender. These warnings reportedly resonated with President Trump, who subsequently backed away from the decision, despite his lingering frustration.
The tensions between President Trump and Gabbard were not solely confined to the Iran issue. President Trump was also reportedly displeased with Gabbard's handling of her deputy, Joe Kent. Kent had resigned after accusing Israel of misleading the administration regarding the necessity of war. Gabbard reportedly further irritated President Trump by declining to condemn Kent during her testimony. Stone, however, reportedly reassured President Trump that Gabbard had no intentions of resigning and did not warrant dismissal.
In the aftermath of these events, the White House has publicly downplayed the situation. Officials have stated that President Trump believes Gabbard is performing an "excellent job" and remains an integral member of his national security team. Gabbard's office has echoed this sentiment, affirming her commitment to advancing the president's agenda.
However, the near-dismissal reveals deeper systemic pressures within the administration. As the Iran conflict continues to generate internal debate and division, even among President Trump's closest allies, the underlying tensions within his administration appear to be reaching a critical point. The incident highlights the complex interplay of policy, loyalty, and political strategy within the highest levels of government, particularly concerning sensitive foreign policy matters. The influence of long-standing advisors like Roger Stone in navigating these internal dynamics underscores the multifaceted nature of presidential decision-making.
