Trump Totally Trashes Tulsi Gabbard Over Iran Nuclear Intelligence

Donald Trump doubled down Friday on his claim that Tulsi Gabbard is wrong about Iran’s supposed nuclear capabilities.

After disembarking Air Force One in Morristown, New Jersey, the president played dumb when confronted with a major discrepancy between his claims about Iran and what U.S. intelligence had to say.

“So you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon,” one reporter said. “Your intelligence community has said they have no evidence that they are at this point.”

“Well, then my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?” Trump asked.

“Your director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard,” the reporter replied.

“She’s wrong,” Trump said.

Earlier this year, Gabbard testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that according to the Annual Threat Assessment, Iran was years away from acquiring nuclear weapons of their own.

When asked about this discrepancy earlier this week, Trump replied, “I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having it.”

In an effort to back Israel’s sweeping military operation in Iran, Trump has continually ignored intel provided by his own government. And Gabbard has made desperate attempts to rewrite her previous statements to get in line with the president’s newfound beliefs about Iran.

Trump has continued to play dumb (or maybe just be dumb) when asked any question about Iran. He repeatedly claimed that he would give Iran two weeks to weigh U.S. involvement—a timestamp he often uses to push things off until people forget about them—and said that he “might” support a ceasefire.

Mahmoud Khalil is finally being released from ICE custody, more than three months after he was detained for his involvement in Columbia University’s pro-Palestine protests.  

In a hearing Friday, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz found that Khalil did not present a flight risk or a danger to his community and that the government should release him on bail, according to Lawfare’s managing editor, Tyler McBrien. 

Farbiarz asserted that there were extraordinary circumstances surrounding Khalil’s detainment, including a chilling effect on his First Amendment rights. The judge also noted that Khalil’s invocation of a due process punishment claim, meaning that the government was attempting to use immigration law as a punitive measure, was substantial enough to warrant his release. 

The judge has asked the government to determine conditions for Khalil’s release, which has been set to take place later Friday.

Dr. Noor Abdalla, Khalil’s wife, released a statement in response to the judge’s order. “After more than three months we can finally breathe a sigh of relief and know that Mahmoud is on his way home to me and Deen, who never should have been separated from his father,” she said, referring to the couple’s infant son. 

“We know this ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family, and so many others the government is trying to silence for speaking out against Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians. But today we are celebrating Mahmoud coming back to New York to be reunited with our little family, and the community that has supported us since the day he was unjustly taken for speaking out for Palestinian freedom.”

Last week, Farbiarz ruled that the government could not deport the green card holder on the grounds that he was a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests or would create a “hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States” if released. But Farbiarz then sided with the government, which argued that it could continue to detain Khalil because he had supposedly lied on his green card application. 

The U.S. government alleged that Khalil purposefully failed to divulge his work as an unpaid intern for the United Nationals Relief and Work Agency and “withheld his membership of certain organizations” when applying for a visa, which was grounds for his removal. The U.S. government also claimed Khalil had failed to disclose his work with the Syria office in the British Embassy in Beirut, as well as his involvement with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a pro-Palestinian activism group at his school. 

Khalil entered the United States on a student visa in 2022 and applied for permanent residency in 2024. He is married to an American citizen.

Across the country, federal judges have ordered the release of multiple students and faculty detained as part of Donald Trump’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech. Khalil has remained in ICE custody since March, forcing him to miss the birth of his child. 

This story has been updated.

Donald Trump, ever the sore loser, wants a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election, which he lost by more than seven million popular votes.

“Biden was grossly incompetent, and the 2020 election was a total FRAUD! The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING” Trump posted on Truth Social Friday morning. “A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America!”

“What this Crooked man, and his CORRUPT CRONIES, have done to our Country in 4 years, is grossly indescribable! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Trump’s call for a special prosecutor follows years of him pushing lies about fraud in the 2020 election and even rallying his supporters to the Capitol on January 6, 2021, to try to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s win. Trump’s team filed more than 60 lawsuits in the aftermath of the election over various claims alleging a stolen election. The judges, many of whom were appointed by Trump or other Republican presidents, did not find any evidence of widespread fraud.

The Department of Homeland Security’s cybersecurity arm at the time declared the election was “the most secure in American history.” Trump was also twice indicted over his attempts to overthrow the 2020 election.

Still, that isn’t stopping Trump from reviving the lies. In 2023, Trump vowed to “appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the U.S.A., Joe Biden, the entire Biden crime family and all others involved with the destruction of our elections, borders and the country itself.”

Now it seems he’s finally making good on that revenge threat.

In a desperate attempt to exonerate himself of drug use allegations, Elon Musk actually just doxxed himself.

Last month, there were multiple reports detailing Musk’s rampant drug use throughout Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, which were published ahead of his brisk “departure” from the White House and eventual social media feud with the president himself.

On Wednesday, the still-fuming tech billionaire posted the results of a hair analysis to X, which showed that he had tested negative for a wide range of drugs.

“The WSJ & New York Times fake ‘journalists’ lied through their teeth about me. Now let’s see their drug test results,” he wrote. “They will fail.”

Setting aside the outlandish demand that two newspapers’ worth of journalists submit themselves to drug testing, it seems that Musk must’ve been in such a hurry to prove his innocence that he forgot to edit the last four digits of his Social Security number out of the image.

When combined with other personal information, the last four digits of a SSN can make it far easier for Musk to be targeted by hacking and fraud.

Musk seems to still be taking his ouster from the Trump administration extremely hard. On Thursday, the billionaire CEO lashed out yet again, calling the White House presidential personnel director Sergio Gor a “snake.”

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan slammed a decision Friday that empowers the courts to ignore federal agencies by undermining agencies’ authority to interpret their own statutes.

In a 6–3 decision along ideological lines in McLaughlin v. McKesson, the Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act did not require federal courts to abide by the Federal Communications Commission’s interpretation of a law restricting telemarketing—and that it should be left to the courts to decide the law’s meaning.

In a scathing dissent, Kagan argued that the court’s conclusion to rely on a “default rule” that allows lower courts to decide whether a statutory interpretation was correct in enforcement proceedings was “wrong.”

“The text of the Hobbs Act makes clear that litigants who have declined to seek preenforcement judicial review may not contest the statutory validity of agency action in later district-court enforcement proceedings,” she wrote. “And this Court’s prior decisions have said just that.

“Today’s majority evades the Hobbs Act’s most natural meaning by relying on a novel ‘default rule,’ which demands that Congress use a certain form of words—really, that Congress create statutory redundancy—to preclude parties from bringing down-the-road challenges to agency action.

“That rule has no foundation in our law; it emerges fully formed today from the majority’s head. And it prevents the Hobbs Act from functioning as Congress wanted—by allowing regulated parties to end-run the Act’s pre-enforcement judicial review scheme, and thereby undermine the stability and efficacy of administrative programs,” she wrote.

The FCC had split federal courts after it issued an order excluding “online fax service” from the definition of “telephone facsimile machine” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In the majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh found that “the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency’s interpretation of a statute.”

“District courts must independently determine the law’s meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation,” he said.

Friday’s ruling could unleash a spate of additional lawsuits against the FCC, as litigants will attempt to test whether they have to comply with any FCC regulation under the TCPA.

Last year, the court ruled to overturn the Chevron deference, a 40-year-old doctrine that required judges to defer to a federal agency when determining the meaning of any ambiguous laws that agency should try to enforce. The decision was criticized as judicial overreach.