Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
U.S. Senate Intel Committee Hearing on "Worldwide Threats". Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired March 18, 2026 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- Nations and close the Strait of Hormuz. Did you brief him on those two facts that I think have been consistently the assumptions
of the intelligence community?
TULSI GABBARD, U.S. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I have not and won't divulge internal conversations. I will say that those of us within the
intelligence community continue to provide the president with all of the best objective intelligence available to inform his decisions.
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): Senator Collins.
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Gabbard, you just testified that ISIS and Al Qaeda are significantly weaker, and
reflecting that view, you have devoted declining budgets, personnel and emphasis on countering terrorism. Yet the fact is that ISIS is growing and
operating in Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan and Iraq.
Al Qaeda is surging in Afghanistan, the Arabian Peninsula and throughout Central Africa. The Houthis in Yemen and the rest of the Iranian proxies
remain a serious threat. Focusing, as you have done, on great power competitors seems to have diverted resources from the fight against
terrorism, a fight that's very much still going on.
As I have said repeatedly, it is terrorists who want and can kill Americans today. We've just seen the terrorists in Michigan attacking the synagogue.
In addition, it appears that a more stove pipe effort in the Intelligence Committee has returned. How are you ensuring that Americans are safe and
that you are countering counter terrorism threats to our homeland and to U.S. citizens abroad?
GIBBARD: Thank you, Senator Collins for your question and the opportunity to clarify the comments in my opening statement. My reference to the size
of ISIS and Al Qaeda organizationally is smaller and weaker than it was during its peak over a decade ago.
However, I completely concur with your remarks about the threat of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups around the world and the threat
that they pose to U.S. interest service members and directly to the homeland. Our ODNI National Counterterrorism Center has been at the
forefront of ramping up, and I believe, is more active today than it has been, certainly in a long time.
We are dedicating every resource that they ask for, as well as the counterterrorism elements across the IC to make sure that we are never
taking our eye off of this persistent threat to the American people. The change in tactics based on the current environment is something we continue
to be most concerned about, where increasingly we are seeing less indicators of large scale, organized, complex threats or attacks.
And instead, efforts focused on individuals, either who have been radicalized by Islamist propaganda and may not have ever had contact with
ISIS or Al Qaeda, for example, and others who have had contact of which we are able to have more indications of.
This remains and will be and as we come to present our budgets to you a foremost and primary priority, the integration across the intelligence
community on the counterterrorism threat occurs every single day, with our teams working very effectively together to thwart terrorist attacks, as we
have over the last year.
COLLINS: Director Patel, I'm going to follow up on this issue with you. ISIS targets potential recruits online through social media, gaming
platforms, encrypted messaging apps. ISIS even facilitated a network online to smuggle illegal immigrants into the United States.
Since April 2021 there have been more than 52 jihadists inspired cases across 30 states. What measures are the -- is the FBI taking to prevent
foreign terrorist organizations from recruiting or influencing Americans, while also ensuring the protection of individuals rights to privacy?
[11:05:00]
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: Thank you, Senator. And I think you said it best, they have transferred their capabilities in terms of personal recruitments
to online recruitments, which makes any terrorist organization, including ISIS, all the more powerful.
What we have done is extended and expanded resources to environments like the Threat Screening Center, which allows us to collect biometric
capabilities from all over the world. We've had a double digit increase in that and a double digit increase in intelligence production.
But what we've also done in the CT space specifically is expand the number of agents and Intel analysts that go online and detect based on our
biometric capabilities and intelligence that we have from the interagency. And what that leads us to is what we saw in December of last year Senator,
where we at the FBI stopped four terrorist attacks, four in California, Texas, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
Three of which were ISIS inspired, we were able to detect these individuals, both online and in person, using our covert platforms, and we
shuttered a bombing campaign in Southern California and two mass casualty events for New Year's Eve.
COLLINS: Director Gabbard, the Intelligence Community did not detect an extremely serious breach affecting our telecommunications industry due to
the Chinese Salt Typhoon incursions for a very long time. In addition, the Chinese vault typhoon threat poses a terrible threat to U.S. critical
infrastructure.
Specific sectors throughout the United States have been overlooked and under protect it. What are you doing to deal with the threat to critical
infrastructure, our electric grid, our communication systems, given this huge mess by our talented intelligence community?
GABBARD: Thank you, Senator Collins for the question. You know, working with our partners at NSA and others to detect these threats and how they
may evolve or developing is something we're continuing to work on.
Building strong partnerships with the private sector, whether it be in the telecom industry, the financial sector, the health care sector, the energy
sector, is something that I am rebuilding. We have seen some of these ongoing relationships falter over previous years.
I have personally been astounded by some of the conversations I have had with leaders from these industries who are just as concerned as we are
about these threats to our critical infrastructure, and yet don't feel that they have the connectivity or the information to be able to secure their
own infrastructure.
So, in short, building those stronger partnerships, integrating and being able to share information intelligence where we can, is critical for us to
be able to secure our country from these threats.
COTTON: Thank you, Senator Collins. Sen Wyden.
SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Gabbard last year, your agencies testified, and I quote, Iran's large conventional forces are
capable of inflicting substantial damage to an attacker, executing regional strikes and disrupting shipping, particularly energy supplies through the
Strait of Hormuz.
In other words, every problem we're seeing now was not only foreseeable, but was actually predicted by the intelligence agencies. So, Director in
the lead up to the start of this war three weeks ago, did the intelligence agencies stick to their assessment that in response to an attack, the
Iranians had the capability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz?
GABBARD: Thank you, Senator Wyden. The intelligence community has continued to provide the president and his team with the intelligence related to this
operation in Iran before and on an ongoing basis.
WYDEN: So, right now we're in a global energy crisis. We're paying more for gas. The economy is in danger. And it seems to me, and I heard you discuss
this with Senator Warner too, that there's a lot of hedging going on with respect to entirely foreseen consequences of the war. And that strikes me,
Madam Director, is what amounts to a historic mistake.
Now, my second question is, did the intelligence agencies assess that the Iranians could respond to a regime change attack from us by attacking U.S.
forces and other American -- and other Americans in the region?
[11:10:00]
GABBARD: The IC assessment has always taken very seriously the threat of the Iranian regime's missile capabilities and how our American troops
within the region may be put at risk.
WYDEN: Again, you know, it seems to me, with Americans dying in the war. It's hard to see how you can sit here and say that the intelligence
agencies couldn't provide a clear warning that if attacked, the Iranians would respond by attacking our people.
Now on Monday, Madam Director, Donald Trump, was asked about Iranian strikes on the Gulf States, he said, and I quote, nobody, nobody, no, no,
no, the greatest experts. Nobody thought they were going to hit the Gulf States. You all are supposed to be the greatest experts. That's what we
have you there for.
Director Gabbard, did the intelligence agencies assess that Iran could conduct strikes on our own partners in the region if it was attacked?
GABBARD: The intelligence community has continued to assess the potential threats to the region, the existing threats to the region, and providing
those assessments to the policy makers and decision makers.
WYDEN: Let me move on to several others of you, with respect to 702, of FISA. And I'm just going to start with you General Hartman. When Congress
last reauthorized section 702, of FISA it included a provision that expanded the type of companies and individuals who could be forced to
assist the government in its spying. Has this expansion resulted in any intelligence General Hartman?
LT. GEN. WILLIAM HARTMAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY: Senator, thanks for the question. Just to be clear, this provision provided
us an ability to collect foreign intelligence on personnel outside of the United States.
WYDEN: Is the major 702 issue in terms of expansion. What was the effect of what was done?
HARTMAN: Senator, I would prefer to talk to you about exact specifics in the closed session.
WYDEN: I'm happy to do that. Let's understand, though, this is a dangerously broad provision that could be used to rope in anybody with
access to a cable box, a Wi-Fi router or a server. It was jammed into the 2024 reauthorization bill at the last minute. Senators were told they had
no choice but to support it.
And now, two years later, we just had testimony from a very respected individual who's saying so far, it has had no value. So, colleagues, we are
getting ready to have another discussion on this. And this ought to be a warning to every Senator that not every new spying power that is sold is
urgent and critically and critical, actually is.
HARTMAN: Senator, can I please respond to that?
WYDEN: Of course.
HARTMAN: So, Senator, just want to be clear, it provided us no additional authority that doesn't involve collecting intelligence on foreigners that
are outside of the United States of America.
WYDEN: Fine. Director Patel, a question for you in 2023 your predecessor testified that, and I quote, to my knowledge, we do not currently purchase
commercial database information that includes location data derived from internet advertising. Is that the case still? And if so, can you commit
this morning to not buying Americans location data?
PATEL: Thank you. The FBI uses all tools. Senator, thank you for the question to do our mission. We do purchase commercially available
information that's consistent with the Constitution and the laws under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and it has led to some valuable
intelligence for us to be utilized with our private and partner sectors.
WYDEN: So, you're saying that the agency will buy Americans location data. I believe that that's what you've said in kind of intelligence lingo. And I
just want to say, as we start this debate, doing that without a warrant is an outrageous end run around the Fourth Amendment.
It's particularly dangerous given the use of artificial intelligence to comb through massive amounts of private information. This is Exhibit A for
why Congress needs to pass our bipartisan bicameral bill, the Government Surveillance Reform Act. I have time, I believe, for one more question
Director Patel.
You, three weeks ago, indicated you were dissatisfied about having your phone record subpoenaed. Do you think the government ought to get a court
order to collect phone records?
PATEL: Senator, my experience, the government does get court orders to obtain phone records.
WYDEN: One last question, General Adams for you. In 2021 your agency confirmed that it had purchased and searched domestic location data. It is
still your agency's position that you can buy Americans location data without a warrant, and if so, are you still doing it?
[11:15:00]
LT. GEN. JAMES ADAMS, DIRECTOR, U.S. DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Senator, thanks for the question. With regards to commercially available information
and publicly available information, the purchases that this agency, that my agency, makes is in alignment with the Constitution and protects U.S.
persons information.
WYDEN: So, but you're buying location data, correct? I mean, we've now had that referred to twice, and I don't think there's any question that you're
doing it.
ADAMS: All of the purchases, purchasing of commercially available information by the agency is passed through legal channels and is in
complete compliance with laws.
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COTTON: General Hartman, I want to give you a chance to answer more specifically what Senator Wyden said you did answer it indirectly. Does
anything in Section 702 give the government the authority to target any American with a cable box or a Wi-Fi router.
HARTMAN: Chairman, nothing in 702 gives us the authority to target an American with a cable router or Wi-Fi device.
COTTON: Thank you. And I would observe about commercially available data, that the keywords are commercially available if any other person can buy
it, and the FBI can buy it, and it helps them locate a depraved child molester or savage cartel leader, I would certainly hope the FBI is doing
anything they can to keep Americans safe.
It's not much different from long standing Supreme Court precedent, for instance, says law enforcement can go through trash that you put on the
side of the curb because you no longer have a privacy interest in it. Senator Cornyn.
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Thank you all for your service to our country and the people you represent. You have our -- we are in debt to all of you. I
want to ask you Director Ratcliffe, yesterday, the Head of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned, saying that Iran did not represent an
imminent threat to the United States.
Is there any anything to indicate that Iran had ceased in its nuclear ambitions or in its desire to continue to build ballistic missiles capable
of threatening American troops and allies in the Middle East?
JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: Senator, no. In fact, the intelligence reflects the contrary.
CORNYN: So, you disagree with Mr. Kent.
RATCLIFFE: I do.
CORNYN: I would think any fair-minded assessment of the situation, even based on open sources, would reflect the danger Iran poses, the regime
poses to the United States. Isn't it true they basically been at war with the West since 1979 during the Iranian Revolution, and have American blood
on their hands?
RATCLIFFE: That's absolutely correct. I think Iran has been a constant threat to the United States for an extended period of time, and posed an
immediate threat at this time.
CORNYN: The threat assessment says that Al Qaeda and ISIS maintain the intent to launch operations targeting the U.S., but it's most likely to
occur through U.S. based loan offenders. I want to ask you, Director Patel, it seems like there's been a raft of incidents recently, on March, 1st in
Austin, Texas, where I live, a lone gunman wearing a sweatshirt saying "Property of Allah" and who the t shirt he wore underneath had an Iranian
flag, killed three innocent people and injured 12 more.
And then we know in Virginia, the Old Dominion, shooting somebody who, unbelievably, was sentenced to 11 years in federal prison for attempting to
support ISIS, but then was released only to commit another terrorist attack. We all are familiar with what's happened in Michigan, in New York,
and I applaud the important role that the FBI has played in stopping some terrorist attacks.
But obviously, the FBI can't be everywhere all the time. Would you please talk about your cooperation and collaboration with Homeland Security
Investigations in countering terrorist attacks against the United States.
PATEL: Thank you, Senator. Absolutely. It is essential that the FBI cooperates with the entire interagency. But as to your question about DHS,
specifically what we have stood up around the country are 59 Homeland Security Task Forces in 59 separate locations.
CORNYN: These are Joint Terrorism Task Force.
PATEL: Essentially the JTTF model was expanded. So, the FBI owns 56 Joint Terrorism Task Forces in each of our field offices. On top of that, we have
59 HSTF, which are co-led by the FBI and DHS. And what that allows us to do is things like we did down in New Orleans just over the holiday period,
where we served for a six weeks period of time.
[11:20:00]
And where we dropped the murder rate by double digit points. And also, the first time that Mardi Gras in its entire history had not one homicide. So,
when you bring the powers of the Homeland Security folks, DHS and the FBI together this is the purpose of it, to get after not just the terrorism
threat, but the violence and the criminal activity in our cities.
And that's why we're in 59 cities across the country, and it's working in places like Memphis and every other city we have it.
CORNYN: Are you aware of the fact that homeland security investigation is a major directorate within Immigration and Customs Enforcement?
PATEL: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
CORNYN: And are you aware that Senate Democrats have uniformly voted not to fund the Department of Homeland Security, including Homeland Security
Investigations, TSA, FEMA and other functions of the Department of Homeland Security.
PATEL: Senator, I'm aware that employees of DHS are one month without pay.
CORNYN: They're not being paid, right?
PATEL: Yes, sir.
CORNYN: And we were all seeing the what's happening at airports, where people are having to wait hours at a time because of the fact that these
TSA agents are overburdened. But what I want to do focus on with you is, is the refusal to fund the functions of the Department of Homeland Security,
including Homeland Security Investigations, making Americans less safe.
PATEL: Absolutely.
CORNYN: So, give us an example of some of the cooperation that you all have engaged in with -- the FBI has engaged in with the Homeland Security
Investigations. I'm looking at an article here that talks about the 190,000 Afghan nationals that were admitted to the United States, literally
unvetted.
And there are examples of individuals within that 190,000 who committed terrorist attacks against the United States and against American citizens,
is that the sort of thing that you are investigating with HIS?
PATEL: Senator, that's one of the many things we're investigating with HIS, DHS, CBP, I.C.E.
CORNYN: Give me some other examples of the collaboration on what other topics, including, in addition to terrorism attacks?
PATEL: What we're allowed to do with our DHS partners, Senator, is enable their massive work force to supplement ours. And what they're allowed to do
is share intelligence on what you just things that you just talked about, about the 100 plus 1000 illegals that came in from Afghanistan during the
Afghanistan withdrawal.
Unfortunately, they weren't vetted thoroughly. So, what we're doing is going back with our DHS partners and vetting absolutely every single one of
them to the best that we can. But unfortunately, we're not able to go out into the country and find every single one of these individuals.
But we need more than 12,000 FBI agents do that job, which is why we are utilizing the 100,000 or so 18/11 at the Department of Homeland Security to
give us the information they have from their immigration records, from their travel records, from their travel logs overseas and within the
country.
And what we're able to do is remove these individuals off the streets in every single state across the country, to include violent gang members, to
include Tend De Aragua, to include ISIS affiliated individuals, to include Al Qaeda related affiliated individuals, and hopefully we do it before and
not after, like the tragedy that we witnessed in Washington, DC, where an individual from Afghanistan was allowed to enter into our country and shot
multiple members of our uniform military service.
COTTON: Senator King.
SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do need to point out, in response to some of the previous comments, twice in the last two weeks, as
recently as last Thursday, Senator Patty Murray, the appropriations committee put a bill on the floor that would have fully funded TSA, FEMA,
SISA and the Coast Guard for the rest of the year, leaving the focus on the dispute that we have with the conduct of I.C.E. as separately.
So, inexplicably to me, that bill was blocked by my Republican colleagues. It would have, as I say, fully funded TSA, FEMA, SISA, a Coast Guard, and
then focus the attention on the situation with I.C.E. So, I just want to be clear on who's blocking funding for those four agencies.
I'd like to ask Ms. Gabbard and Director Ratcliffe, Director both of you were either of you in the room or your designees when the president was
making the final decision about taking this action against Iran on February 27th and 28th?
[11:25:00]
Was there an Intelligence Committee, intelligence community present in that -- in those deliberations? Mr. Ratcliffe, your response?
RATCLIFFE: Senator King, probably in dozens and dozens of briefings with the president. I don't know if there was a single meeting where there was a
single time where a decision --
KING: Were those dozens of meetings right during the lead up to this war? I know you've met many times, but I'm talking about it in the two weeks or so
before the decision to go into Iran?
RATCLIFFE: Again, countless meetings with the president.
KING: During that period?
RATCLIFFE: During that period.
KING: Director Gabbard, were you present in those discussions?
GABBARD: Likewise, yes.
KING: The reason I'm asking the question is there seems to be a discrepancy between what the intelligence committee community has reported over the
years and what the president has said in terms of his of this action.
For example, Senator Wyden read the report from a year ago that strikes against neighboring states and action to close the Strait of Hormuz was
predicted by the intelligence community, and yet the president says nobody knew. And my question is, did you tell him? Anybody want to answer that
question?
RATCLIFFE: Senator, I'll answer the question. So, with regard to briefings, the president gets briefings constantly about intelligence. Now the
comments that you talked about I had not heard.
What I can tell you is that Iran had specific plans to hit U.S. interests in energy sites across the region, and that's why the Department of War and
the Department of State took measures for force protection and personnel protection in advance of Operation Epic Fury. I think that's what's most
important.
KING: Any predictions to the president about the Strait of Hormuz? All you got to do is look at a map and you'll see that the vulnerability the Strait
of Hormuz was that? Was that part of the briefing Director Gabbard?
GABBARD: I think the Director Ratcliffe made the point here is that this has long been an assessment of the IC that Iran would likely hold the
Strait of Hormuz as leverage.
KING: My question is, was that communicated to the president in the lead --
GABBARD: And it is because of that long standing assessment that the IC has continued to report that the Department of War took the preemptive planning
measures that it did.
KING: Well, they've stated that they did not plan for the Strait of Hormuz. The president said, who knew that was going to happen anyway? Let's move
on. Does the president take a daily brief from the intelligence community? This is a yes or no question.
RATCLIFFE: Yeah, the president, I would say Senator, in my estimation, on average, I briefed the President of the United States on intelligence,
probably on average, 10 to 15 times a week where I have conversations with him about specific discrete issues.
Sometimes there are dedicated sessions that last hours in length. Sometimes I'm briefing him on specific issues, sometimes three or four times a day.
But I would say, on average, my interactions where I'm briefing the president on important national security matters happens probably on
average, 10 to 15 times per week.
KING: Thank you. Could you update us on the intelligence on Russian intelligence sharing with Iran in the current conflict? What do we know?
GABBARD: Senator, if there is that sharing going on, that would be an answer that would be appropriate for a closed session.
KING: Well, it's been in the public press. This is open source that it's occurring. Is it occurring?
GABBARD: Again, if it is occurring, that would be an answer appropriate for a closed session. What I can tell you is that, according to the Department
of War, any support that Iran may be receiving is not inhibiting their operational effects.
KING: OK, that's sort of the first cousin of a yes, I guess. According to intelligence analysis, can regime change or the elimination of the
estimated 1000 pounds of highly enriched uranium be accomplished without boots on the ground?
ADAMS: Senator, the discussion about the Iranian nuclear capability we intend, in the closed session to talk about that in great deal.
[11:30:00]
With regards to revealing any information about the ability to do that, I would have to defer that to closed session.
KING: OK. I'll see you in an hour. Finally, there was very little, if anything, in the report, in the assessment about climate change, and that's
been in past reports. There is a lot of discussion about migration.
The estimates are that climate migrants because of the changes in the climate and the atmosphere, and particularly in the center equatorial area
of the earth will range from 200 million to a billion people by 2050.
Do you believe that is a national security threat that should be addressed? The Syrian refugees were about 6 million, and they upset the politics of
Europe for several years. We're talking about 200 million to a billion people on the move. I believe that's something we should be discussing and
that the intelligence community should be assessing. Director Gabbard?
GABBARD: Yes, Senator, there are a number of drivers of things like migration. It would be an extensive and voluminous annual threat assessment
if we included every single one. This annual threat assessment is focused again on priorities laid --
KING: So, you don't think --
GABBARD: -- out by the president's National Security Strategy and on the effects that we can take action, operational action to protect U.S.
interests.
KING: Well, I would suggest combating climate change is something we can take action on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COTTON: On the matter of media reports about Russian or Chinese collaboration with Iran, I would point out that the media is not a
classification authority. And that kind of story, whether true or not, might be better suited for the FBI to investigate on whether there's been
unlawful disclosures of classified information.
I would also say it sounds like something Russia and China would do. Communist Russia used to do it during the Cold War, and Communist China has
always done stuff like that. On the Patty Murray Legislation, not only would it have defunded I.C.E. and CBP, it would have also defunded Homeland
Security Investigations, which do critical work on our streets to protect our communities from financial crimes, from predators, from transnational
gangs as well.
So, while we would all like to see the TSA and the Coast Guard and other critical parts of homeland security as well. We do not want to defund the
police this time, the immigration police. Senator Moran.
SEN. JERRY MORAN (R-KS): Chairman, thank you. I believe that it's in the U.S. as national interest, our security interest, for Ukraine to be
successful in defeating the Russian invasion. I'm concerned with the consequences of Operation Epic Fury on that ability of Ukraine to succeed
in defending its borders.
And General Adams in broad terms, not necessarily not classified terms, what are the consequences to the supply chain, to the capability of the
United States to supply NATO allies and Ukraine as a result of Operation Epic Fury? My question is that usual problem of, how do we do both? Are we
doing both? Is U.S. support maintained or diminished for Ukraine as a result of Epic Fury?
ADAMS: Senator, thank you for that question. And we do continue to beyond Epic Fury observe what is happening across the world in crisis like Russia
and Ukraine. Unfortunately for the situation there now, just based on the force composition and the delta between the Russian forces and the
Ukrainian forces, the advantage is to the Russians.
As we get into the classified hearing, we can talk a little more specifically about this, the items, with regards to supply chain and with
regards to the information that the Defense Intelligence Agency collects. We look at the foreign threat and what their capabilities are from a multi
int perspective, we look a little bit less at friendly capabilities.
Now we defer questions with regards to U.S. supply chain limitations, with regards to logistics and the effort that the Secretary of War is having,
with regards to trying to boost the U.S. Defense industrial base. I would defer those to the department to discuss.
MORAN: Well, General please be prepared for the classified session for me to continue to pursue this.
[11:35:00]
I mean, I don't -- our supply chain issues are not classified in the sense that every hearing I'm in as a defense appropriator has officials from the
Department of Defense testifying about the need for further assistance.
And really, I'm asking for the facts of what has happened as a result of Operation Fury, Epic Fury, in the last few weeks, in our supply to Ukraine
and our NATO allies who are supplying Ukraine?
ADAMS: Yes, sir. The department is executing a comprehensive in fact; the SEC war has gone around the nation to boost the defense industrial base. We
know for a fact that we have to increase our defense industrial base capability. Its impact, based on the munitions expended during Epic Fury,
will be an impact, but we need to boost it. The efforts are underway to boost it.
MORAN: Well, I'm interested in helping accomplish that goal. Director Ratcliffe, perhaps along the same line, I assume among -- let me first of
all compliment you on your public service. I appreciate you. And that's not my usual town hall meeting when I get a compliment from somebody who then
follows it with a but?
I am interested in being of help, and I in regard to your conversations in preparation for Epic Fury, I'd be interested in knowing if the consequences
to our abilities to defend the United States against Russia or China or other adversaries was taken into account. How is that diminished or
increased by Operation Epic Fury?
And particularly in this instance, about what it means was the conversation had about what it means to our ability to help Ukraine defend itself. U.S.
support for Ukraine includes military and other assistance, but also, we've undertaken economic sanctions against Russia for their invasion of Ukraine.
And Epic Fury has caused a significant increase in oil prices, and the administration has waived sanctions against Russian oil companies, which
are reported to say that Russia is receiving $150 million per day, additional dollars as a result of the waiver.
What can you tell me about our plans, or your understanding of what's transpiring as a result of Operation Epic Fury in regard to those oil
revenues that are now being generated in favor of Russia, and the lifting of this, of the sanctions, at least for a temporary period of time.
RATCLIFFE: Senator, thanks for the compliment I thank. I'll start with a couple things. What I would tell you, is the same military and intelligence
professionals who delivered, not just for the administration, but for the American people, a flawless intelligence picture and flawless military
operations in operation midnight hammer and operation absolute resolve, are the same folks involved with Operation Epic Fury.
And so, I hope that provides you some measure of comfort with regard to how detailed, how thoughtful the approach was to the current operation. And
that's why I think that to mischaracterize it as it is being done in the media is a disservice to the folks involved in what is a very specific
campaign that is different than the two that I mentioned before.
It's why the president came out and said, this isn't over in a matter of hours. This is a four-to-six-week campaign, and that it would come at some
cost, because the goal of the president and the administration is to address a 47-year problem, the most destabilizing force in the Middle East
for the last 47 years.
One that has frankly been watered, fed and nurtured by policies of prior administrations that has allowed them to become the threat that they have.
So, I say all of that sort of in context to understanding that we have to address that. But at the same time, to your point on the what's going on
with regard to Russia and Ukraine.
And you mentioned the oil issue, sometimes policymakers have to take steps that, while they may benefit adversaries like Russia or China. Do so
because they also think it will benefit U.S. citizens, in this case, with respect to keeping the economy on track and keeping oil prices low.
[11:40:00]
So, what I can tell you is the intelligence is thoughtfully considered, and I think that policy makers have taken that. And are -- I'm confident that
we can walk and chew gum at the same time pursue objectives in the Middle East and provide support with regard to the conflict in Russia and the
Russian aggression in Ukraine.
COTTON: Senator Bennet.
SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Mr. Director Ratcliffe, just -- you just described the specific campaign that
the president is engaged in the country is engaged in with respect to Iran.
I think that the campaign has been one, in my view, without a specific rationale for the American people. 19 days into President Trump's
unauthorized war with Iran, and by which, I mean there has been no congressional approval, at least 13 American service members are dead, and
many others are injured.
President Trump has offered no credible justification for the imminent threat, no clear goals, no strategy or timeline. His message keeps
changing, I think, in really damaging ways. President Trump said Iran's nuclear facilities had been, quote, totally obliterated in June 2025.
But when he launched this latest war, he said we need to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat of those totally obliterated nuclear facilities.
President Trump has threatened to seize Iranian oil and demanded our allies reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
He said that I'm demanding that these countries come in and protect their own territory, because it's their territory, it's the place from which they
get their energy. By the way, he wasn't just asking for our allies to protect or to bail them out in the Straits of Hormuz. He was asking China
to bail them out in the Straits of Hormuz.
And then he said, maybe we shouldn't even be here at all, because we don't need it. We have a lot of oil. And he said we do not need the help of
anyone. President Trump has declared we have won the war. We won it in the first hour. But then he said we're not leaving until the job is finished.
He said that there is practically nothing left to bomb, but then threatened to bomb Iran again. Quote, just for fun, I think words that probably have
never come out of a military leader in the history of the United States of America. It shouldn't come out of the mouth of a civilian leader.
President Trump said he will end the war when I feel it. Feel it in my bones, and any time I want to end it, it will end. But Director, the war is
not ending. It is escalating, with thousands of U.S. Marines reportedly sailing toward Iran on an unclear mission, a mission that's become less
clear over days, not clearer.
Our air strikes wiped out Iran's missiles, and Supreme Leader, nobody here, and certainly me, is shedding a tear for him. But the Iranian people now
live under Marshal law and the by the way, no surprise to our intelligence agencies that that's the case. And the fort -- and the first of a puppet
leader who's chosen by the our IRGC.
No surprise that anybody on to anybody on the Intelligence Committee. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and is holding the global economy hostage. No
surprise to anybody who knows anything about U.S. intelligence launching drones at our embassies and military bases. No surprise. The president is
surprised.
Nobody who has looked at our intelligence is surprised. Iran's nuclear program is damaged, to be sure, but it still has a uranium stock file. We
heard today from the DNI at the very beginning of this conversation that the regime is in place and they are going to rebuild their military
capabilities, the ones that we are destroying right now.
The question, I think, is raised, Director about your specific engagement is whether it will become a perpetual war, because what Iran will do is
exactly what they have always done, and which the DNI is saying they will do again.
In its briefings the committee, the Intelligence Committee, has been clear eyed about what would happen in the Straits of Hormuz. Has been clear eyed
about whether or not our military bases, our embassies and our personnel in the region would be placed at risk and in harm's way, even though the
administration did very little to protect them.
[11:45:00]
I know Senator, I know Director Radcliffe that I am that you warn President Trump that if Israel assassinated the Supreme Leader, the RRGC would
replace him with potentially a harder line puppet. In fact, I think what was clear is that the likelihood was that it would be a hardline puppet. Do
you disagree with that characterization of the intelligence?
RATCLIFFE: To that specific question what we knew was, first of all, I guess I have to address up front, so much of what you related in there. The
difference between political rhetoric versus --
BENNET: Not political rhetoric. I'm quoting the President of the United States.
RATCLIFFE: Political rhetoric --
BENNET: Director --
RATCLIFFE: Difference between that and military and intelligence execution. But here's the most important thing, you mischaracterize this as saying
there aren't clearly defined goals. The defined goals are very clear, degrade and destroy the missile inventory and drone inventory.
Delay and degrade the military industrial base and factories that produce that. Degrade and destroy the --
BENNET: I have no --
RATCLIFFE: The IRGC navy that could control this strait. These are all defined goals -- specifically. The premise of the question --
BENNET: I want my time back, Mr. Chairman. I can't get a word in edge wise. He won't answer the question, and then he's taken a minute of my time.
COTTON: You're both big boys; you can handle it yourself.
BENNET: OK. Well, Director, I agree that you are, and I appreciate what you're saying. And I would -- I'm not. My point is not what your
characterization of the war is. My point is what the character is, the demand --
RATCLIFFE: Do you mean regime change?
BENNET: I'm not asking you anymore Mr. Director. I'm sorry, because I'm out of time because of how you use the time. The complete lack of clarity
should matter to everybody. President Trump, most of all, he is the person that got elected on the criticism that we had.
We had fought two wars in the Middle East that had lasted for 20 years, and now we're hearing the testimony is to get their ballistic missiles to not
even get to the nuclear stuff. We're going to have to be in a perpetual war with Iran. And I don't think that's where the American people are on this.
This is a serious threat. This is a serious threat to us and to Israel. The question is how to handle it. And President Trump said, we are not the
policemen of the world. He ran on that, and now he's turned us into the world's policeman, into its jury, into its judge, into its executioner, and
just because we have the most advanced military in the world.
COTTON: Senator times is up. Senator Bennet your time has expired.
BENNET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COTTON: Senator Rounds.
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'd like to maybe follow up a little bit the same line of questioning, but I want to do it a little
bit different manner. I've had the opportunity, like all of the other members on this committee, to see the threats that we discuss regularly in
the classified settings.
I also sitting on the Armed Services Committee, have the opportunity to see what our capabilities are and what we have to do in order to respond to
those threats. Director Ratcliffe, let me just begin.
I think it's been very clear from the beginning that even though there were supposedly diplomatic activities going on behind the scenes, it was very
clear. And I just ask if you would disagree or agree with me on this, it was very clear that Iran, while they were talking, they had no intentions
of following through diplomatically with eliminating any of their nuclear aspirations, correct?
RATCLIFFE: Senator, that's correct. And in the classified session, we can go into detail, but you've characterized it right. Diplomatically, they
were saying one thing, the intelligence was reflecting quite the contrary.
ROUNDS: OK. Second of all, with regard to the capabilities, earlier in the 12 Day War, a lot of their defensive capabilities had been taken out. Their
air defenses had been taken out. The use of our aircraft in that area was safer because those defensive capabilities, most of them, had been
significantly reduced, meaning our young men and women who are flying those aircraft were safer. Is it fair to say that they were rebuilding their
defensive capabilities as well at that time?
RATCLIFFE: Yes. So, I'll just comment on that. So much is being made, any characterization that Operation Midnight Hammer was anything but a wild
success is wildly inaccurate.
[11:50:00]
So, as a result of Operation Midnight Hammer at the time of that in the preceding four years, as is well documented and admitted to by the
Iranians, they enriched uranium at least 440 kilograms at 60 percent for use that could be used for weapons grade to deliver a nuclear weapon.
As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, we sit here today with Iran having exactly the same amount of enriched uranium to 60 percent, meaning
they have been unwilling and uncapable, or incapable of enriching uranium to 60 percent as a result of Operation Midnight Hammer.
ROUNDS: OK. Let me go on, because I think this is an important part of this.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN HOST, ONE WORLD: All right, you've been listening to the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on worldwide threats. We've
heard from the Director, the DNI, CIA Director as well, and the FBI Director, Kash Patel, all there testifying before members of this
Committee.
Clearly, as expected, a lot of questions about the operation and the war in Iran. What the goals were of the operation? And the lack, as many Democrats
have noted, of communication with Congress prior to launching this war now into its third week.
Let's turn now to CNN National Security Analyst Alex Plitsas who joins us from Washington. And the best characterization of that criticism really was
just on full display when we saw Colorado Senator Bennet there going back and forth. Things getting quite testy between him and the CIA Director in
terms of what led to this war.
The credible threats that the United States Intel Committee or the United States Intelligence arm had assessed, and what the end goals will be,
because it does seem, from day to day, that changes. Talk to us about what you heard, what stood out to you thus far?
ALEX PLITSAS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Sure. Well, I think, you know, the Senators on the Committee were attempting to get the clarity, I think
that many Americans have been asking about just given the fact, as you mentioned, that some of the objectives have changed, or at least seem to
have changed, over the course of the last few weeks, since the conflict kicked off.
And so, the White House and the Pentagon have attempted on several occasions to clarify what the goals and objectives of the war are, which
you know clearly now at this point, contain, taking out the missiles, the drones, the associated industrial base, the Navy, you know, obviously
taking out the leadership that was responsible for the protesters.
But now we've seen what I would describe as mission creep with the Iranian response in the Straits of Hormuz. And even though it's not physically
blocked or mined, the risk from a few attacks on boats has increased significantly, and the threshold for transiting has gone up.
So, ship owners are simply not willing to take that risk right now, and that's having an impact on global markets. And it looks like the only way
to clear that right now would be potentially through military escorts and other means, which is now adding to that mission.
ZAIN ASHER, CNN HOST, ONE WORLD: Yeah, it's interesting because obviously the U.S. President is trying to call on NATO allies, on EU allies, to
assist in the Strait of Hormuz. Many of them have not just been reluctant, but non-committal. They've talked about this idea that we were not
consulted.
The Europeans were not consulted going into this war. Therefore, it is not our war, and therefore not our responsibility, to continue this war. There
is a lot of political risk for several European Leaders in terms of supporting Trump in this front, especially if it's in much more than just a
defense capacity.
When it comes to what we're learning about the general consensus about the imminent threat that Iran posed to the United States, there is a big
difference, Alex, between a direct and imminent threat to the U.S. versus an indirect threat to American assets. The key difference between those two
things, just walk us through what we're learning about the consensus on that front.
PLITSAS: Sure. So, I think the president's presented as an imminent threat. There have been statements made that, you know, Iran was one or two weeks
away from acquiring a nuclear weapon or building one, and that there was, you know, a significant series of other threats in the region.
What we know to be fact at this point is that there are about 440, kilograms of highly enriched uranium at about 60 percent, 90 percent is
what you need to get to a weapon. And since most of the infrastructure appears to have been destroyed during the summer, during the 12-day war
with Operation Midnight Hammer, in which the B2 bombers dropped that ordnance on the facilities.
It was a question of whether or not they could even get to 90 percent. And even if they could, that's where they get to fuel for a weapon in about one
to two weeks. You still have to build the weapon afterwards, which the first time, is usually the size of a Volkswagen, and then you have to
miniaturize it.
Then it goes on a delivery vehicle, which they do have, because they have the ballistic missiles. So, it's not clear that there was an imminent
nuclear threat. And the second piece then was the ballistic missiles.
[11:55:00]
We now know from statements from the Israeli government that they said they were planning to conduct an operation about six months from now, because
essentially, this was a ticking time bomb math equation of the ability to intercept missiles and defend against them versus the Iranian capacity to
build them, and they were, in fact, continuing to build.
So, if the Israelis saw it as an imminent threat, their operation would have been six months out from now. So, there doesn't appear to have been an
imminent threat from the missiles in terms of the numbers or the nuclear program, but the president has come out and said that there could have been
a preemptive strike that the Iranians were planning, and it sort of forced the U.S.'s hand.
So that's at least what we know to be fact at this point, in terms of what's been said. The credible nature of that imminent threat from a
preemptive strike is unknown so far. We've only heard that in comments, but there's been no evidence released to support it.
GOLODRYGA: All right, Alex Plitsas, thank you so much for sticking around. We're going to go back to the hearing now, where you see Senator Mark Kelly
questioning members of the U.S. Intelligence. Let's listen in.
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): -- contribute more to their defense to deter Russia. Directors Gabbard and Ratcliffe, would you agree that China and
Russia are our primary geopolitical rivals? Director Gabbard?
GABBARD: Yes, they are our primary strategic.
KELLY: Thank you. Director Ratcliffe?
RATCLIFFE: I would agree with that, although I don't think they're equal in terms of the threats that they understand.
KELLY: Understand. Thank you. So that brings us to the war with Iran. So, this has created one of the largest ever supply shocks to the global oil
supply, which has sent gas prices skyrocketing for Americans. But not everybody is losing. Directors Gabbard and Radcliffe, is it accurate that
Russia has gained billions of dollars in additional oil revenue due to price spikes as a result of the war and loosens sanctions? Director
Gabbard?
GABBARD: That is what has been reported. I'd defer to the Director of Secretary of Treasury and Energy on that front for details.
KELLY: Director Ratcliffe?
RATCLIFFE: Yeah, not an economist, not going to try and do those calculations. But as I talked about earlier, sometimes there are decisions
made that will benefit adversaries at the same time, policymakers think that it will benefit the American people.
KELLY: Clear, I think we'd all agree that sanctions were loosened, and that means more money into the coffers of Vladimir Putin. Would you agree that
if he has more funding, he is likely to put that to his war effort against Ukraine. Director Gabbard?
GABBARD: I would defer to an actual intelligence assessment on what they would believe his intentions are.
KELLY: Director Ratcliffe?
RATCLIFFE: Yeah, I wouldn't speculate on that.
KELLY: Wouldn't speculate. OK. OK. And is it accurate that China is continuing to receive preferential oil flows from Iran despite the
conflict, as Iran allows its own tankers to transit the strait. Director Gabbard? I'm going to go back and forth between the two of you.
GABBARD: There has been some reporting of China, India and other countries being able to move their tankers through the strait. However, it is unclear
the volume or the measure of that.
KELLY: OK, so it sounds like it's accurate. Thank you. I'm going to move on. Director Gabbard, you tweeted yesterday that President Trump concluded
there was an imminent threat and made a decision to attack Iran after carefully reviewing all of the information before him.
I think the country deserves to know what the information was. I'm going to ask a series of questions, and just want a yes or no. We don't need any
explanation, just yes or no, starting with, were you asked? I'm not asking if you did brief this. Were you asked to brief on whether Iran would close
the Strait of Hormuz?
GABBARD: I'm not going to comment on what the president did or didn't ask me on any topic.
KELLY: I'm not even -- I'm not asking if you briefed it. I'm just asking if there was a request by the White House?
GABBARD: I understand --
KELLY: Director Ratcliffe, were you asked to brief on whether Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz?
RATCLIFFE: The briefings to the to the president of the White House typically don't come at the request of the White House. So typically, when
we get intelligence that we want the president to be aware of, the intelligence community brings that to the president.
KELLY: Did you produce the analysis for the Straits of Hormuz?
RATCLIFFE: There has been and continues to be analysis with respect to that.
KELLY: Were you asked a 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 a 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.
END
