Return to Transcripts main page
Inside Politics
Dem Sens. Press Intel Officials About Strait Of Hormuz Planning; Lawmakers Question Top Trump Intel Officials About Iran War; Gabbard: Trump Is Only One Who Can Define "Imminent Threat"; Gabbard: Trump Told Me To "Go And Observe" Fulton Co. Search. Aired 12-12:30p ET
Aired March 18, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:00:00]
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): We asked to brief on how our adversaries and allies would respond to the war in Iran. I imagine I'll get the same answer. So, it's just to point out here, it's challenging to forget about actually what was in the brief for a second. We're having a hard time finding out, not only if you briefed the president on something, but even if the White House asked if they could be briefed on something, or if analysis was produced.
So, I just want to point out here, it's about six days.
JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: Can I comment on this?
KELLY: Yes.
RATCLIFFE: I'll go back to the point. It's the same approach that we took to the -- to the prior operations, which, to your credit, Senator, you have praised the intelligence and military communities in operation Midnight Hammer and operation Absolute Resolve is the same approach and the same professionals in terms of how they approached this particular --
KELLY: We're trying to figure out if the president knew what the downside was of the Strait of Hormuz being closed. And I'm having a hard time finding out whether the White House asked or whether there was a brief, whether the president knew, did he know this was going to happen, or did he just disregard it?
And I just want to point out something that was released about six days ago. This is a fund-raising email from the president, from the president in the United States, and in this email here, where there's multiple links to donate money. It says, as a national security briefing member, you will receive my private national security briefings.
Director Gabbard or Director Ratcliffe, do you think the public should be able to supporters of the president should be able to pay and receive his private national security briefings? I assume these are briefings Director Ratcliffe that you provide to the president that is now going to be provided to somebody who makes a probation.
RATCLIFFE: Regardless of what that -- I don't know that document is, but regardless, what it says, it didn't happen.
KELLY: No, this was new.
RATCLIFFE: But what I'm telling you is that the Hatch Act would prevent me from an apolitical role, from engaging in that. I'm not aware that anything like that happened.
KELLY: This says unfiltered updates. So, Director Gabbard, do you have any comment on whether unfiltered updates of private national security briefings should be made to individuals that donate to the president?
TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I'm not familiar with that document and --
KELLY: It's been made very public six days ago. We'll get you a copy here, because I agree with you, Director Ratcliffe, that the Hatch Act should prohibit this type of conduct. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Lankford joins us from what I gather is a very exciting confirmation hearing for Senator Mullin.
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): It is actually -- for all of you, thank you. Thank you for the time that you give to the country to be able to serve, for your families, and the sacrifice that you make to be able to do this and all the professionals who work around you. Please pass on our gratitude to them because they work incredibly hard and difficult tasks in this.
I want to talk about something that's a little closer to home on this. A lot of Oklahomans, I talked to, and quite frankly, folks even outside the state on it. When they think about threats, they as strange as this may sound to those of us that deal with missiles and ballistics, they think about the threat to their family and to their income and to who they are. And a lot of it is international scammers that are now reaching into the United States to be able to gather data or to be able to steal money from them.
AI has accelerated this dramatically, and I know the worldwide threats has mentioned this and some of the challenges that we face on it, but the challenge is getting bigger. FBI had noted that in 2024 it was almost $17 billion that was assumed lost to scammers, a lot of those internationals. Some estimates are as high as $50 billion on it. AI continues to be able to accelerate the capabilities on it.
OpenAI even noted now that there is -- they're putting online ads saying, if you've been scammed, here's a way to recover your money. And that is actually a scam. It's taking them to a fake FBI page where they can then turn in and to say, if you've been scammed, here's how the FBI is going to actually come help you to recover it, but even that page is fake and they're going to be able steal their information.
This is accelerating at a pace that's pretty dramatic with the use of AI on this. Director Patel, I know that you guys are on it. I know that there's multiple entities on it, but this is a big challenge, and a lot of Americans are very, very concerned about the threat to their families that may have their parents that are more vulnerable at this time and being targeted.
How do we take some of this on to be able to confront what's happening online to be able to attack people and to be able to scam them?
[12:05:00]
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: Thank you, Senator. And it's with any other high priority operation that the FBI runs, whether it's CIA CT or talk about scamming and scam centers here. One, you have to drown and get online with your online covert employees and platforms. And we've increased funding and we've also -- what we've done strategically is move people out of Washington, D.C. on the intel analyst from the support staff front to places like Oklahoma. Actually, every single state across the country has received a plus up because of that.
And what we've created is the Internet Crime Complaint Center, the IC3 unit, which I know you're familiar with and reference. So, what we're doing on the homeland is going out into the streets of America, on the online platforms in America, and shutting down those networks and shutting down the capability of AI to interfere.
But I think the bigger term project, what we're doing overseas, that's the key to this. The scam center compounds are largely located in Cambodia and Burma and on the Thai border. I've already engaged with the premiers of each and every one of those countries. We've done so to switch off access to the internet with those governments to make sure that those compounds, their literal compounds, that are being built.
We can get into that in the classified senate that are fleecing Americans and senior citizens all the way from Southeast Asia because they are backed by the CCP to build those compounds, because they know it's going to hurt everyday Americans.
So, us, which we have successfully already eliminated and scuttled -- excuse me, numerous compounds in Cambodia and Burma and Thailand, is the big picture, the big part of the lift overseas. With what we're going to do is go into those countries and shut down every single scam center compound.
LANKFORD: Which is very helpful. And every American is thinking about this and talking about it. Director Patel, I'm going to stay with you. The counter narcotics work has been phenomenal in the past year and a half. The amount of methamphetamine and fentanyl that had been seized coming across our border has been dramatic, and that has a real effect to what's actually coming at families in my state on it.
What I'm interested in is, how are you partnering with local law enforcement to continue to accelerate this process? What does that look like for FBI?
PATEL: Absolutely, Senator. The counter narcotic mission can't be complete without state and local law enforcement. So, we are embedding more task force officers across the country on the specific counter narcotics mission. We've also stood up with our interagency partners in Tucson, Arizona, the southern border intelligence center, specifically on a counter narcotic mission so that we can utilize the Department of War and interagency capabilities on the law enforcement front.
That's why we seized enough fentanyl in 2025 to kill 178 million Americans. That's a 31 percent increase year-over-year. And here's a statistic that everybody should be proud of. Opioid overdose deaths from last year dropped 20 points, 20 points from across the country. And in Oklahoma, specifically, Senator, we seized enough kilograms of cocaine to include a 232 percent increase in the state of Oklahoma alone, and enough fentanyl to kill 500,000 Oklahomans.
We can't do that unless we have great police partnerships, which has been a priority of mine, which is why they've embedded police officers here at headquarters from around the country to make sure we have that connectivity. And I've shortened the task force officer onboarding pipeline from one to two years to 90 days, we need them.
LANKFORD: Yeah, we do. Director Ratcliffe, the annual threat assessment highlights this year the Muslim brotherhood in particular. And calls out some of their financial material support on this that may be surprising to some folks here, but it's not surprising to folks all across the Middle East in the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood continues to pose to so many governments and entities across the world on that.
How is the Muslim Brotherhood financing itself and its acts of terrorism? And is there something that we need to do here to be able to make sure that we're protecting Americans in the threat?
RATCLIFFE: Senator, I think, with regard to the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, you know, we view that, just as we do other proxies across the Middle East, the Houthis and other groups. And I can relate to you that the CIA is very focused on the counterterrorism front. You weren't here before. I said in the classified portion, I would get into the CIA success with regard to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, in a classified setting where I can -- I can share with you the impact that we're having.
But what I like -- and across the board, with regard to terrorist groups and our counter terrorism activities, I can publicly characterize it as saying we've had -- we've accomplished more in the last year than in the four years of the prior administration combined. So hopefully, it gives you some measure of comfort about how we're approaching things and the effectiveness that we've had in the last year in that regard, and I look forward to getting into detail in the classified portion.
[12:10:00]
LANKFORD: Look forward to that. Thank you. Senator Reed?
SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you. The Washington Post reported earlier this week, in their words, the U.S. intelligence assessments say, Iran's regime likely remain in place for now, weaken but more hardline with the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps security forces exerting greater control. Director Gabbard, do you stand by that reported intelligence community assessment?
GABBARD: I don't stand by any leaked so-called intelligence to the media. I do stand by the intelligence community's assessment that was included in the annual threat assessment that speaks directly to this issue, that as of this moment, the regime maintains power within Iran, even though they are vastly degraded on almost every front.
REED: Do you think that the killing of the ayatollah and his wife and other family members and key people contributed to the picking of a hardline successor?
GABBARD: Senator, the intelligence community's assessment has pointed to a number of different scenarios that went into play with the selection of the successor. The details of that we can discuss in a closed hearing with regard to the intelligence reporting.
REED: Is the regime in Iran now trying to promote the deceased ayatollah as a martyr who should be followed, and does that help them consolidate support?
GABBARD: Senator, the Iranians are certainly using that as a call to action. The effects of that from an intelligences' standpoint are remain to be seen.
REED: There is a tradition in Shia, though, to honor martyrs, one of their greatest celebrations is the martyrdom of the grandson of Mohammed. Is that correct?
GABBARD: That's right.
REED: So, he might have played into their cultural biases erroneously. General Adams, what condition the USS would need to be present to make the regime collapse when this is a necessity, excuse my voice, unconditional surrender. And can it be done with air power alone?
LT. GEN. JAMES ADAMS, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Senator, we have at the Defense Intelligence Agency put together a number of scenarios coordinated across the ICU with regards to what we would forecast, the future would be. One of the -- there are four specific goals that we've been told to track and analyze with regards to the goals of the U.S. effort. They've been articulated earlier in the hearing, so I won't hammer on those. But with regards to the collapse of the regime, specific perpetuation like what would precipitate that. We would like to -- I would prefer to talk about that in the classified hearing.
REED: Well, I understand, but there's a very basic question here. Will air power alone be able to destroy this regime, given the culture, the politics, the temperament of these people -- the Iraq, Iran war lasted for eight years with a million casualties. Do you think air power alone will do it?
ADAMS: Senator, the capabilities that our joint force brings to bear can accomplish many missions to forecast exactly what can and can't accomplish this goal. I prefer not to guess or prognosticate on that. REED: I'll recognize your professional position. U.S. Special Steve Witkoff recently stated that Russian leaders told Trump on a call that they were not sharing intelligence with Iran. Wick says, quote, we can take them at their word, Director Gabbard and Ratcliffe, you take President Putin and his word.
[12:15:00]
RATCLIFFE: I'll go ahead and answer No, I don't take Vladimir Putin at his word.
REED: Are they providing intelligence the Iranians?
RATCLIFFE: Well, we talked about this before. In the classified session, what we can go into is that the Iranians are requesting intelligence assistance from Russia, from China and from other adversaries of the United States, and whether and -- whether or not those countries are, is something we can talk about in the classified portion.
REED: But you've made an assessment, you've analyzed traffic communications, and you can --
RATCLIFFE: I know the answer, and I'm happy to discuss that with you in the classified portion.
REED: Yes, sir, go ahead.
RATCLIFFE: Go ahead.
REED: Thank you. One of the aspects of this is the collateral effects, particularly in Russia and Ukraine. We're just talking about Russia probably or possibly, providing intelligence who may be interfering or inflicting casualties on our forces. Russia is also benefiting from the lifting of sanctions on their ability to sell oil throughout the world. I heard one estimate of a $20 billion surge in their potential revenues.
Ukraine, on the other hand, is facing perhaps a disrupted supply chain of missiles and other equipment because they're being devoted to this operation. So, General Adams, can you just give me a concept your impression of the effect of the battle on Russia and Ukraine at the moment of this battle?
ADAMS: Well, from our collections, the effect of the epic fury on the Russian, Ukrainian battle has been indirect, not direct. We do track very carefully what benefits, or as you alluded to, the collateral effects of what we're doing and how it impacts. There is a lot of -- from both the Russians and the Chinese observations of what we're doing and figuring out what they can learn from that.
So, I think that's a collateral effect as we expose what the joint force displays on the battlefield. And I think we can talk in a little more detail as we move to the classified session, some of the things that we're collecting specifically about what those effects are.
REED: Thank you very much.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Ossoff?
SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here. Before I ask you a few questions, I want to call everyone's attention again to this fundraising email signed by the president that Senator Kelly mentioned earlier, in which the president of the United States invites his campaign donors to quote, claim your spot. Claim your spot.
Join now to receive private national security briefings to his political donors, featuring a photo of the president at a dignified transfer ceremony with a flag draped coffin of an American service member killed in action returning to their family. And the American people need to know that the president of the United States is fund raising for his political campaign and his PAC using images of American service members killed in action and it's a disgrace.
Now, Director Gabbard, I'd like to reground this in your core responsibilities. Under the law you are responsible for providing national intelligence to the president, correct?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: And to the heads of executive branch departments and agencies, yes?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: And to the chairman of the joint chiefs and senior military commanders?
GABBARD: Across the ICE, yes.
OSSOFF: And to the Senate and the House and relevant committees, correct?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: And the law states that the national intelligence you provide to Congress, quote, should be timely, objective and independent of political considerations, correct?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: And you noted in your opening statement you're here fulfilling a statutory responsibility, and that your testimony quote represents the ICEs assessment of threats, correct?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: In that opening statement as submitted to the committee in advance of this hearing, stated that as a result of last summer's air strikes, "Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated" correct?
[12:20:00] GABBARD: That's right.
OSSOFF: And is that, in fact, the assessment of the intelligence community?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: So, the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was iterated by last summer's air strikes?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: And the opening statement you submitted to the committee last night also stated, "there has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability," correct?
GABBARD: That's right.
OSSOFF: And that's the assessment of the intelligence community?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: The White House stated on March 1 of this year that this war was launched and was "a military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime." That's a statement from the White House. Quote, the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime. Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?
GABBARD: The intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment.
OSSOFF: Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or No?
GABBARD: Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat, is the president and you made that determination.
OSSOFF: This is the worldwide -- this is the worldwide threat, searing where you present to Congress national intelligence, timely objective and independent of political considerations. You've stated today that the intelligence community's assessment is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated, and that quote, there had been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. Was it the intelligence community's assessment that, nevertheless, despite this obliteration, there was a quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime. Yes or No?
GABBARD: It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat.
OSSOFF: OK.
GABBARD: That is up to the president based on a volume -- (CROSSTALK)
OSSOFF: No, it is precisely -- it is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States. This is the worldwide threats hearing, where, as you noted in your opening testimony, quote, you represent the ICEs assessment of threats. You are here to represent the ICEs assessment of threats. That's a quote from your own opening statement. And so, my question is, as you're here to present the ICEs assessment of threats, was it the assessment of the intelligence community that, as the White House claimed, on March 1, there was a quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or No?
GABBARD: Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has provided the inputs that make up this annual threat assessment --
OSSOFF: You won't answer the question.
GABBARD: The nature of the imminent threat that the president has to make that determination based on a collection and volume --
OSSOFF: You're here to be timely intelligence -- You're here to be timely, objective and independent of political consideration.
GABBARD: Exactly, what I'm doing.
OSSOFF: No. You're evading a question because to provide a candid response to the committee would contradict a statement from the White House. Let me ask you about your presence in Fulton County on January 28 of this year. You were present at the FBI as Reed on the Fulton County elections office on January 28, correct?
GABBARD: I was present for part of the FBI exercising a warrant approved by a municipal judge
OSSOFF: Yes. And the FBI was there executing -- the FBI was there executing that warrant to seize ballots and materials associated with the 2020 election, correct?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: And are you aware that members of this committee have already opened inquiries into your election related activities?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: And are you aware that your general counsel and deputy general counsel have already provided testimony to this committee regarding those activities?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: On February 2, you sent a letter to Senator Warner regarding your presence at the raid. Was that letter accurate?
GABBARD: I don't recall the exact date, but if I sent a letter that had my signature, it was accurate.
OSSOFF: You stated in the letter that your presence at the raid was quote requested by the president, correct?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: When did the president request your presence at the raid?
GABBARD: The day of the raid, the war and execution commencing.
OSSOFF: The day of the raid.
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: He called you on the phone.
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: I'm not going to disclose how the message was delivered, but it was a request from the president his administration to go and help oversee this warrant being executed, along with the Deputy Director of the FBI --
OSSOFF: Is it your role to oversee --
GABBARD: The FBI agents who were conducted --
OSSOFF: Is it your role to oversee the execution of criminal warrants?
GABBARD: It is my role, based on statute that Congress has passed, to have oversight over election security to include counterintelligence.
OSSOFF: But you said you oversaw the raid, correct? You just testified you oversaw the raid.
GABBARD: Portions of it.
[12:25:00]
OSSOFF: OK. Did you handle any ballots or election related materials?
GABBARD: No.
OSSOFF: You were inside an FBI evidence truck, correct? You were photographed inside an FBI evidence truck.
GABBARD: It was an empty truck, yes.
OSSOFF: The president stated quote, you look -- still wanted to be checked out --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Senator's time is expired.
OSSOFF: Did you look at votes as the president --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Ossoff, your time has expired. OSSOFF: You respond for the record?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. She cannot respond because --
OSSOFF: No, for the record. Will the -- director please respond for the record to that question is -- to my question.
GABBARD: I'm happy to respond to questions for the record.
OSSOFF: Thank you, Director Gabbard.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. Vice Chairman?
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): I just want to -- not going to go back to this issue. I'm sure we'll address in the closed setting, but I am very disappointed. This is the only one time a year the public gets to hear from you guys in this kind of setting. And the fact that we have repeated public reporting, including a major story in The Wall Street Journal today about China and Russia assisting Iran, which seems obvious and evident, and none of you would confirm that publicly, I think, doesn't give the American people the full challenges of this war.
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): I would add what I said earlier that the media is not a classification authority but certainly sounds like something Russia and China would do, and they have done for decades in the past to Americans.
To wrap up a little business here before we adjourn the open session, we will reconvene in 30 minutes in our usual location for the closed session. That's at 12.56 promptly. I do want to note for the record that Senator Young cannot join us. He is at Dover Air Force Base for the dignified transfer of remains for one of our fallen heroes.
DANA BASH, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: OK, this worldwide threats hearing is now wrapping up the public portion. As you just heard from the Chairman Tom Cotton, they're going to go into classified briefing settings.
Welcome to Inside Politics. I'm Dana Bash in Washington.
And as we have been listening to this hearing. What we have heard are Tom, Trump administration officials, including the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI and CIA directors, all testifying. It's one of two contentious Senate hearings we are monitoring happening simultaneously major implications in both for the war in Iran and dangers here in the United States.
In a building right next door, the Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin is trying to convince his colleagues. He's ready to take the reins at the Homeland Security Department. I do want to talk quickly about what we just saw at the end of that intel committee.
I'm joined by a terrific group of reporters to discuss it. One of the questions that was posed and not specifically answered several times throughout this hearing of Tulsi Gabbard and others. Was that the question of trying to square the intelligence community's assessment that in the military operation last June, they completely obliterated Iran's nuclear program. And yet, the president is saying that the nuclear program still poses an imminent threat.
She sidestepped that several times, and she put it squarely on the lap of the president, insisting that it is not up to them to determine what is an imminent threat. That did not satisfy particularly the Democratic senators.
HANS NICHOLS, POLITICAL REPORTER, AXIOS: Yes. But in a lot of ways, we always knew this debate was going to come down to imminence. I mean, there have been famous cases in international law where the question is really, how imminent, how acute, how threatening is the actual threat? And what she's doing there, saying, essentially, that's a presidential prerogative. That's the commander in chief. He's got to make the decision on that.
I suspect both sides aren't going to be satisfied with that answer. It was almost awkward, sort of the answers, how quiet it was at times. It was both back and forth and very ra-ta-ta. And also, there was times when -- there was a one or two-word answer, when it seemed as though the question begged for more. But we've all seen a lot of these hearings, and this one had probably more explosive moments than most, but it wasn't the most fiery hearing. I think the most fire hearing of the day was the earlier one that mark by Mullin. OK.
BASH: We will get to -- we're going to do that in a minute. But I take your point about imminent threat. There's the general imminent threat because Iran, no question, poses threats through its proxies, through conventional weapons. But this is specific to the nuclear threat. Because in recent days, even I would say maybe even the last week.
I mean, you know, from covering President Trump. He has been slowly but surely, sort of honing-in on this notion of a nuclear threat, probably because that is something that he understands resonates with the American people more than anything else. And yet, his director of national intelligence was there saying that the intelligence community
[12:30:00]
