FULL TRANSCRIPT: Gabbard, Ratcliffe & Patel Testify on Worldwide Threats — Senate Intelligence Hearing

Full transcript of the Senate Intelligence Committee Worldwide Threats Assessment hearing featuring Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, FBI Director Kash Patel, Acting NSA Director Lt. Gen. William Hartman, and DIA Director Lt. Gen. James Adams. Transcribed from the live broadcast.

[0:00] Chairman Cotton: Worldwide threat assessment hearing. Let me begin by welcoming our esteemed panel of witnesses. The Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, the CIA Director John Ratcliffe, the FBI Director Kash Patel, the Acting Director of the National Security Agency and Commander of US Cyber Command Lieutenant General William Hartman, and the DIA Director Lieutenant General James Adams. Thank you all for your appearance today and for your service. I also want to offer a special thanks to General Hartman who is about to enter a well-earned and well-deserved retirement. General, on behalf of the committee, thank you for your lifetime of service to our nation.

[0:26] Chairman Cotton: I'd first like to take this opportunity to commend the thousands of men and women in our intelligence agencies whom our witnesses represent. Our intelligence professionals are second to none. Because of their service, their dedication and their sacrifice, Americans are safer at home and around the world, but because of the nature of their work and their commitment to the United States, they are safer. Grateful Americans don't buy their lunch at restaurants or even have a chance to say thank you. So on their behalf, let me simply say thank you.

[0:59] Chairman Cotton: I want to make two basic points this morning. First, the world is always a dangerous place, especially for America. But thanks to your agencies and President Trump's leadership, the world isn't quite as dangerous for Americans as it was a year ago. Thanks to the efforts of our military and intelligence personnel, including my fellow Arkansans who are now serving in the Middle East, the Iranian revolutionary regime that terrorized the world for 47 years is finally knocked on its back foot.

[1:39] Chairman Cotton: Last summer, we devastated Iran's nuclear facilities. In recent weeks, we have eliminated Iran's top leadership, pummeled its military, sunk its navy, destroyed its missiles, neutered its proxies, and left its economy reeling. After 47 years of indisputable war, we have finally won the war. We have finally won the war. And thanks to your decision and timidity, America has finally put our foot down.

[1:59] Chairman Cotton: I'm also pleased to report that things have improved a lot in our own backyard now that Venezuela's illegitimate communist dictator, Nicolas Maduro, is rotting in a New York prison. Only the United States could execute a military and intelligence operation of this difficulty without a single American life lost. Our military is awesome.

[2:21] Chairman Cotton: But these operations wouldn't have succeeded, and probably wouldn't have even been tried, without timely, accurate, and fact-based intelligence from your agencies. These successful operations are a testament to our intelligence professionals' ability to expose and uncover critical details about America's enemies. So let this be a warning to those who wish America harm. We leave no stone unturned. And there's no one or no thing close to you that might not betray you.

[2:40] Chairman Cotton: Today's hearing is a tribute to the American people. Today's hearing is an opportunity for the American people to hear an unvarnished and unbiased account of the remaining threats we face. From communist China, North Korea, and Russia to the East, to narco-terrorist cartels here at home, these threats truly do span the globe.

[3:05] Chairman Cotton: And for my second point, your agencies have improved over the last year thanks to reforms that have gotten them back to basics. Of course, my two points are related. When our intelligence agencies are not able to do their job, our intelligence agencies return to their core mission: stealing the secrets of our adversaries to deliver timely and needful intelligence. America is safer for it.

[3:30] Chairman Cotton: These efforts are already bearing fruit. For example, last year, the CIA increased its foreign intelligence reporting by 25%. This year, the CIA is on track to hire and deploy more officers than at any point in the last quarter century. While I'm greatly encouraged by the progress, more remains to be done. We must always acquit our intelligence agencies to the task of delivering timely and needful intelligence. We must always equip our intelligence personnel with the tools they need to do their jobs well and execute their missions.

[4:04] Chairman Cotton: That's why I fully support President Trump's request for a clean reauthorization of FISA Section 702. And it's why I expect a healthy intelligence budget request in the administration's supplemental appropriations request to fund operations against Iran and narco-terrorists. No doubt our military needs supplemental funding, but our intelligence agencies need it just as badly. Moreover, I urge each of you to continue to make personnel and institutional reforms that will cement these changes and foreclose a return in the future to bureaucratic bloat, political bias, and excessive caution within your services.

[4:41] Chairman Cotton: When I became chairman, I promised real reform across the entire intelligence community. Our first Intelligence Authorization Act set the foundation for a more efficient intelligence community by, for example, reorganizing the ODNI, improving the security of CIA installations, and directing resources towards foreign intelligence collection and covert action. This year, I look forward to going further, namely by growing our cadre of collectors, making generational investments in core capabilities, providing new capabilities to defend our space assets, and further codifying reforms to guard against any future return of bloated and biased bureaucracy.

[5:21] Vice Chair Warner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me also offer a good morning to our witnesses. Let me also join you, Mr. Chairman, by beginning by thanking, literally, the tens of thousands of men and women across America's intelligence community who work every day to keep our country safe. Their work is by necessity secret. That is the nature of intelligence. But that is also why hearings like this one matter so much.

[5:54] Vice Chair Warner: Over the past year, we have seen a series of developments that raise serious concerns about the erosion of safeguards that protect both our democracy and our security. And nowhere is that more worrying than when it comes to the integrity of our elections.

[6:17] Vice Chair Warner: For decades now, our intelligence community has warned that foreign adversaries, including Russia, China, and Iran, are actively seeking to shape the outcome of American elections. These efforts have included cyber intrusions, disinformation campaigns, and covert influence operations designed to divide Americans and undermine our confidence in our democratic institutions. Protecting our elections from these threats should be one of the intelligence community's highest priorities.

[6:53] Vice Chair Warner: The DNI is supposed to be coordinating the intelligence on foreign election interference, warning the American people about adversaries seeking to undermine our democracy, ensuring that federal, state, and local officials have the information they need. Congress even required the creation of a foreign malign influence center inside the office of the DNI to coordinate the intelligence community's response to foreign election interference, and ensure that these threats are properly shared across the government.

[7:23] Vice Chair Warner: That is the mission Congress assigned to the DNI. But while foreign adversaries are actively probing our democratic institutions, the DNI has eliminated the foreign malign influence center, and does not have a designated official coordinating the response to election threats. And for months, the committee has reportedly repeatedly requested briefings from the IC, briefings that are required by law on legitimate foreign threats to the midterms. We have received no response.

[8:02] Vice Chair Warner: Now that silence should concern every member of the committee, because it clearly demonstrates that the DNI is not interested in protecting American democracy by combating foreign influence. Instead, unfortunately, we have seen the DNI involve herself in purely domestic matters.

[8:22] Vice Chair Warner: Last month, we saw Director Gabbard personally participate in a law enforcement raid to seize election ballots and voting machine records in Fulton County, Georgia. A raid tied to an election that the president lost six years ago. When the warrant supporting the raid was unsealed, it showed something deeply troubling. There was no foreign connection to justify the involvement of our nation's top spy. Instead, the predicate for the warrant was a slew of debunked conspiracy theories that had already been rejected repeatedly by courts, by independent investigators, and by even Georgia's own Republican Secretary of State.

[9:10] Vice Chair Warner: Yet the nation's top intelligence officer was personally involved in this operation. This raises one very serious question: If the intelligence community is not being deployed to mobilize against foreign threats, why is it being deployed at all on a domestic issue? The DNI's appearance at this raid, as well as their involvement in seizing voting machines from Puerto Rico, suggests something that should alarm every American: an organized effort to misuse national security powers to interfere in domestic politics and potentially provide a pretext for the president's unconstitutional efforts to seize control of the upcoming elections.

[10:03] Vice Chair Warner: Don't take my word for it. The president has repeatedly pushed for the nationalization of our elections, calling for federal government to override the state election laws and, quote, take over voting while continuing to make false statements about election fraud. And we have heard troubling rhetoric from senior officials that reinforce these concerns. As former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said publicly, we've been proactive trying to make sure we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders to lead this country, and we've been doing that for a long time.

[10:52] Vice Chair Warner: At the same time, the administration has brought into government individuals promoting conspiracy theories about our elections. The so-called White House Director of Election Security and Integrity, Kurt Olson, played a key role in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Now Mr. Olson holds a position inside the federal government with the authority to refer criminal investigations and access our most sensitive security information. All supposedly doing his witch hunts around elections. As a matter of fact, according to court filings, he helped trigger the FBI seizure of the ballots in Fulton County.

[11:29] Vice Chair Warner: So it is worth asking why is someone whose career has been devoted to undermining the legitimate results of a democratic election now operating from inside the federal government, with access to law enforcement and intelligence authorities? What exactly has he been empowered to do? As members of our committee know, this committee was created in the aftermath of the unconstitutional abuses exposed after Watergate. The guardrails have been built around our intelligence and law enforcement agencies over the past several decades exist for a reason. Without them, America begins to look more like adversaries emphasized in this year's annual threat assessment: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and less like a democracy.

[12:41] Vice Chair Warner: Confronting these very clear and present threats to American security requires experienced professionals and intelligence agencies that are focused squarely on their mission. Instead, over the past year, we've seen actions that only serve to weaken them. Politically motivated purges at the FBI has resulted in the exodus of hundreds of agents and the reassignments of hundreds more from key national security areas like counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and cyber, and where they've been redeployed to, immigration enforcement.

[13:07] Vice Chair Warner: In one troubling case, agents working on a task force focused on threats from Iran were dismissed because they had previously participated in the investigation of the president's mishandling of classified information. Elsewhere, the bureau's budget is being slashed. Last year it cut over $500 million with the largest decreases from cyber, counterterrorism, and counterespionage. And the remaining scarce resources are being squandered on things like a $60 million jet for the director's personal travel so we can go golfing in Scotland or partying with athletes in Milan.

[13:51] Vice Chair Warner: In fact, according to a whistleblower account, those flights became so frequent they even delayed the bureau's response to major incidents like the Charlie Kirk assassination or shooting at Brown University. Credible reports also indicate that highly trained FBI agents from elite SWAT units have been reassigned. The chauffeur, his girlfriend, and unprecedented use of personnel whose training was intended for hunting violent criminals and neutralizing terrorists.

[14:23] Vice Chair Warner: Unfortunately, this dysfunction has not been limited to the FBI. Both the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency were both left leaderless for months after the president fired their directors. One at the behest of a 9-11 conspiracy theorist and the other for providing a fact-based assessment that contradicted the president's claims about obliterating Iran's nuclear program. Clearly, if the program had been truly obliterated, the president wouldn't be bombing again right now.

[15:00] Vice Chair Warner: And again, more than one third of the personnel at CISA, created by Congress to protect critical information and the political infrastructure like power, water, and election systems, have been forced out. That seems like a real mistake as we still grapple with the intrusion called CYFUN and the recent Iranian cyber attack on Stryker.

[15:26] Vice Chair Warner: And we are now seeing in real time the cost to the State Department. Thousands of American citizens were trapped in a literal war zone with little assistance from their own government. For a time, those calling the U.S. government hotline for assistance were greeted with a pre-recorded message that said, please do not rely on the U.S. government for assisted departure or evacuation. This was a foreseeable security crisis. When you start a war of choice, when there was no imminent threat, you should be able to prepare to make sure you get Americans out of the war zone.

[16:05] Vice Chair Warner: That same attitude pushed some of our closest friends into the arms of our most capable foes, with profound consequences. Two of our most significant allies, Canada and the U.K., are currently working to sign trade deals with China because they no longer believe the United States is a dependable partner. That's a remarkable statement in 2026. And in the President's war of choice with Iran, a war that has already killed 13 civilians, cost Americans taxpayers billions of dollars, and scrambled supply chains from oil to fertilizer to aluminum, nobody answered the call when the President asked our allies to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

[16:57] Vice Chair Warner: As the President's own counterterrorism chief acknowledged in his resignation yesterday, Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States. Unfortunately, our allies have been in the same position for a long time. They have been alienated and distracted by the administration's unilateral threats like invading Greenland. And the result is clear. Americans have been left more exposed in an already dangerous conflict.

[17:21] Vice Chair Warner: Now, what I say, what I just outlined is quite a list. And it's a partial one at that. Matter of fact, we've got a full list we'd like to share with all the press. So what does this all mean? It matters because I believe the warnings and the actions of the U.S. contained in this year's annual threat assessment. I believe our I.C. when they say the global security environment is becoming more complex and that armed conflict is becoming more global. And I also agree with the assessment when it says that to succeed, we must think prudently and prioritize our efforts.

[18:01] Vice Chair Warner: On the topic of the annual threat assessment, I want to close where I began by noting that since the first time since 2017, in the aftermath of Russia's intervention in our 2016 elections, the annual threat assessment includes nothing, nothing about adversary attempts to influence American elections. Now, I don't believe this omission means that the threat has disappeared. It means that the intelligence community is no longer being allowed to speak honestly about it. And it raises serious questions, and I will be asking about these your priorities, Director Gabbard, in terms of what you're choosing to prioritize instead.

[18:46] Vice Chair Warner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

[19:19] Director Gabbard: Thank you, Chairman Cotton, Vice Chair Warner, members of the committee, good morning. I'm here today to present the 2026 annual threat assessment joined by the directors of the CIA, FBI, DIA, and NSA. Before I begin, before I continue on behalf of the intelligence community, I want to extend our thanks to General Hartman for his 37 years of service in uniform and closing out his 37 years with tremendous leadership of the NSA.

[19:52] Director Gabbard: This briefing is being provided in accordance with ODNI's statutory responsibility. I'd like to remind those who are watching what I am briefing here today conveys the intelligence community's assessment of the threats facing U.S. citizens, our homeland, and our interests. Not my personal views or opinions.

[20:07] Director Gabbard: In this assessment, we're following the structure of priorities that were laid out in the President's national security strategy, starting with threats to our homeland and then shifting to global risks. The defense of our homeland is of the utmost importance to the American people, and efforts by this administration have shown over the last year the results of bolstering homeland defense in the security of the American people.

[20:44] Director Gabbard: For example, the strict enforcement of U.S. policies at the U.S.-Mexico border and regionally have served as a deterrent, drastically reducing illegal immigration. Based on Customs and Border Patrol data, January 2026's monthly encounters are down 83.8 percent compared to January 2025. Encounters declined 79 percent compared to 2024.

[21:02] Director Gabbard: The drivers of migration are likely to continue. Potentially, worsening instability in countries like Cuba and Haiti risk triggering migration surges, and smugglers who have long operated as transnational criminal organizations continue to view chaos as an opportunity for profit and will continue to look to profit from illegal immigration flows. These transnational criminal organizations continue to pose a daily and direct threat to the health and safety of millions of U.S. citizens primarily and directly by producing and trafficking in illegal drugs.

[21:37] Director Gabbard: Under President Trump's leadership, fentanyl overdose deaths have seen a 30 percent decrease from September 2024 to September 2025. President Trump's aggressive efforts to more directly and actively target these transnational criminal organizations and reduce the inflow of fentanyl precursors has already had a significant impact, which is likely to continue. We've seen fentanyl potency also decrease, likely due to the decline in the dose of fentanyl. The U.S. government has also been working hard to reduce the use of fentanyl, which has led to disruptions to the production supply chain. U.S. efforts to work with China and India to halt the flow of fentanyl precursor chemicals to North America are demonstrating some improvement, but there is more work to be done as sadly there are still tens of thousands of fentanyl-related deaths in America every year.

[22:24] Director Gabbard: Mexico-based TCOs like the Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco New Generation Cartel dominate the production and smuggling of fentanyl, heroin, meth and cocaine into the United States. Colombia-based DCOs and illegal armed groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the National Liberation Army are responsible for producing and trafficking large volumes of cocaine to the U.S. and European markets, with now some indicators of attempts to expand their market to the Asia-Pacific region. Colombia remains the world's largest producer of cocaine, and Colombian criminal groups have expanded their trafficking relationships with neighboring countries to the United States.

[27:52] Gabbard: The IC assesses that China and Russia are developing advanced delivery systems meant to be capable of delivering more than 3,000 missiles.

[28:35] Gabbard: However, these assessments will clearly be updated as the full impact of Operation Epic Fury's devastating strikes on Iran's missile production facilities, stockpiles, and launch capabilities is determined. These nations collectively will likely seek to understand U.S. plans for advanced missile defense for the homeland, probably for the purpose of shaping their own missile development programs and assessing U.S. intentions regarding deterrence.

[29:00] Gabbard: Shifting to the cyber domain, the IC assesses that China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and non-state ransomware groups will continue to seek to compromise U.S. government and private sector networks, as well as critical infrastructure, to collect intelligence, create options for future disruption, and for financial gain. The IC assesses that China and Russia present the most persistent and active threats and are continuing to their R&D efforts. North Korea's cyber program is sophisticated and agile. In 2025 alone, North Korea's cryptocurrency heist probably stole $2 billion, which the IC assesses is helping to fund the regime and include further development of its strategic weapons programs.

[29:43] Gabbard: Financially or ideologically motivated non-state actors are becoming more bold, with ransomware groups shifting to faster high-volume attacks that are harder to identify and mitigate.

[30:00] Gabbard: Innovation in the field of artificial intelligence will likely accelerate these threats in the cyber domain. The IC assesses that it will increasingly shape cyber operations with both cyber operators and defenders using these tools to improve their speed and effectiveness. For example, in August of 2025, cyber actors used an AI tool to conduct a data extortion operation against international government, healthcare, and public health emergency service sectors, as well as religious institutions.

[30:24] Gabbard: Moving to the Arctic, the IC assesses that Russia and, to a lesser extent, China aim to strengthen their presence in the region through increased maritime trade, natural resource extraction, and military activity. Russia, which has the longest coastline in the Arctic, has long sought recognition of its polar great power status and is deploying more military forces and building new permanent infrastructure. China, though not an Arctic country, is engaged in more limited efforts in the region to advance its own strategic goals.

[31:27] Gabbard: AI adoption at scale across the spectrum of usage poses serious risks. AI has the potential to aid in weapons and systems design and has been used in recent conflicts to influence targeting and streamline decision making, underscoring the risk and likely threats that could manifest on the battlefield.

[31:51] Gabbard: Early developers in quantum computers will give countries an extraordinary technological advantage over others to quickly process national security information and break current encryption methodology used to protect sensitive finance, health care, and government information.

[32:11] Gabbard: The global security landscape is volatile and complex, with armed conflict growing more common and posing potential threats against US interests. Strategic competition and regional and smaller powers are becoming more willing to use force to pursue their interests, heightening the risk of conflict.

[32:29] Gabbard: The IC assesses the space domain is becoming increasingly contested, with China and Russia developing counter space capabilities to challenge US space efforts.

[32:47] Gabbard: The threat of nuclear proliferation and advancing chemical and biological warfare capabilities continues to grow.

[32:47] Gabbard: I'll turn now to our neighborhood in the Western Hemisphere where flagging economies, high crime rates, pervasive organized crime, migration flows, corruption, narcotics trafficking, all of these present a spectrum of risks to US interests and where strategic competitors seek to gain greater influence in the region.

[33:05] Gabbard: The IC assesses that Latin America and the Caribbean almost certainly will see hot spots of volatility in the coming year. Since Maduro's arrest, the IC assesses a shift in Venezuela's leadership towards cooperating with the US to open its economy. The IC has been working with the US and the Caribbean to develop the country's oil and gas extraction capability and we've seen their movement in releasing political prisoners.

[33:36] Gabbard: The US-Mexico-Canada agreement review in 2026 will likely increase uncertainty in many Latin American countries, especially those that rely on Mexico as an export destination for intermediate goods for manufacture and onward export to the US.

[33:45] Gabbard: China, Russia, and Iran are likely seeking to sustain economic, political, and military engagement with Latin America. The IC assesses that China's demand for raw materials is likely to continue to drive its economic outreach, while Russia likely wants to expand its current security and diplomatic ties with Cuba and Nicaragua.

[34:06] Gabbard: The IC assesses that China aims to elevate its own political, economic, military, and technological power to increase its own regional positioning, global influence, and to fend off threats to their interests.

[34:21] Gabbard: While there are challenging areas where interests diverge, President Trump's diplomatic engagements with President Xi to work towards US interests have enabled progress where those interests align.

[34:30] Gabbard: The IC assesses that China continues to rapidly modernize its military forces across all domains in pursuit of its goal to achieve world-class status by mid-century. This includes building a force with the aim of being capable of deterring US and allied forces in the region and to achieve their stated objective of developing the ability to seize Taiwan by force, if necessary.

[34:51] Gabbard: However, the IC assesses that China likely prefers to set the conditions for an eventual peaceful reunification with Taiwan short of conflict.

[35:01] Gabbard: The IC assesses that an increasingly confident North Korean regime remains a source of concern regionally and globally. Its weapons of mass destruction, its conventional military capabilities, illicit cyber activities, and demonstrated willingness to use asymmetric capabilities poses a threat to US and its allies, particularly South Korea and Japan.

[35:21] Gabbard: North Korea's partnership with Russia is growing. And in 2025, Kim took steps to improve ties with China, still North Korea's most important trading partner and economic benefactor.

[35:34] Gabbard: The IC assesses that North Korea's support for Russia and the war against Ukraine has increased North Korea's capabilities as their forces have gained combat experience in 21st century warfare along with equipment. In 2024, North Korea deployed more than 11,000 troops to Russia to support combat operations in Kursk.

[35:57] Gabbard: Pyongyang continues to develop and expand its strategic weapons programs, including missiles that can evade US and regional missile defenses. It is continuing to work to increase its nuclear warhead stockpile and maintains biological and chemical weapons capabilities.

[36:12] Gabbard: Russia retains the capability to selectively challenge US interests globally by military and non-military means. The IC assesses that the most dangerous threat posed by Russia to the US is the potential of an escalatory spiral in an ongoing conflict such as Ukraine or a new conflict that led to direct hostilities, including the potential deployment of nuclear weapons.

[36:35] Gabbard: The IC assesses that Putin continues to invest in Russia's defense industrial base as well as novel capabilities that may pose a greater threat to the US homeland and forces abroad than conventional weapons. Russia has advanced systems, hypersonic missiles, and undersea capabilities designed to negate US military advantage.

[36:54] Gabbard: Moscow also relies on other tools to exert pressure, using gray zone tactics to further its goals and compete below the level of armed conflict. Russia is also building an extensive counter space capabilities to contest US space dominance. Its development of a nuclear counter space weapon poses the greatest single threat to the world's space architecture.

[37:20] Gabbard: During the past year, the IC assesses that Russia has maintained the upper hand in the war against Ukraine. US-led negotiations between Moscow and Kiev are ongoing. Until such an agreement is met, Moscow is likely to continue fighting a slow war of attrition until they view their objectives have been achieved.

[37:38] Gabbard: In the Middle East, conflict and instability will shape security, political, and economic dynamics in a variety of ways. The IC assesses that Operation Epic Fury is advancing fundamental change in the region that began with Hamas's attack on Israel, in October, and continued with the 12-day war last year, resulting in weakening Iran and its proxies.

[37:59] Gabbard: The IC assesses the regime in Iran appears to be intact, but largely degraded due to attacks on its leadership and military capabilities. Its conventional military power projection capabilities have largely been destroyed, leaving limited options. Iran's strategic position has been significantly degraded.

[38:21] Gabbard: The U.S. led maximum pressure campaign and snapback of European sanctions added additional pressure to an already bleak Iranian economy, resulting in mass protests earlier this year that Tehran suppressed by killing thousands of protesters.

[38:35] Gabbard: Even if the regime remains intact, the IC assesses that internal tensions are likely to increase as Iran's economy worsens. Even so, Iran and its proxies continue to attack U.S. and allied interests in the Middle East.

[38:51] Gabbard: The IC assesses that if a hostile regime survives, it will likely seek to begin a years-long effort to rebuild its military, missiles, and UAV forces. Prior to Operation Epic Fury, the IC assesses Iran was trying to recover from the severe damage to its nuclear infrastructure sustained during the 12-day war and continued to refuse to comply with its nuclear obligations with the IAEA, refusing them access to key facilities.

[39:21] Gabbard: The IC assesses that if a terrorist attack occurs in the Middle East, it will likely be a result of a military operation. Iran has long viewed the U.S. as an adversary and has engaged in active conflict with the U.S. as of today.

[39:38] Gabbard: These four countries the IC assesses are likely to continue their selective cooperation with each other, which could bolster their individual capabilities and threats to U.S. interests more broadly. However, currently these relationships are primarily bilateral on selective issues, and in some cases, concerns over directly confronting the United States.

[39:59] Gabbard: Finally, conflicts on the continent of Africa are likely to persist through 2026 due to poor governance, economic demands, and external support. Tensions continue between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which could rapidly accelerate to conflict.

[40:24] Gabbard: The IC assesses that African governments will likely use their wealth and critical minerals to seek partnerships that deliver them meaningful benefit. Concurrent conflicts and crises across the continent will continue to put U.S. citizens at risk and cause further instability.

[41:06] Gabbard: In closing, as leaders of the intelligence community, we remain committed to providing the president and policymakers with timely, unbiased, relevant intelligence to inform decision-making and to ensure the safety, security, and freedom of the American people.

[41:23] Gabbard: Thank you.

[41:24] Cotton: Thank you, Director Gabbard.

[41:26] Cotton: General Adams, Camden, Arkansas, is the home of brand-new production lines for the Israeli missile defense interceptors. Could you please explain how Critical Arrow and Iron Dome?

[41:36] Gabbard: The Iron Dome systems being built in Camden are for not only Israel's defenses, but the defense of hundreds of thousands of American citizens and troops in the region?

[41:48] Adams: Chairman Cotton, thank you for that question. I have to say that the Arrow system and the Iron Dome system are critical defensive systems that prevent adversary power projection from impacting the targets and the friendly areas. The Iron Dome is a very effective defensive system.

[42:06] Adams: The Iron Dome is more of a closer-in system, protecting against rockets and things of that nature. But the combination of those two with U.S. systems creates a shield to prevent those attacks from the Iranians impacting key areas in the region.

[42:36] Cotton: Thank you.

[42:36] Cotton: Thank you, General Adams.

[42:37] Cotton: I was recently in Camden with Secretary Hegseth as part of his Arsenal Freedom Tour, and they are great Arkansans who do great work to keep our nation safe.

[42:48] Cotton: General Hartman, we've often spoken about our pressing need for more cybersecurity manpower and part-time formation, such as the Arkansas Air National Guard's 223rd Cyberspace Operations Squadron, or a great way to grow the force. What recommendations do you have to grow the Cyberspace Operations Squadron? What are some of the things that you think we should be doing to grow the cyber protection teams and develop more capacity for local and national missions?

[43:11] Hartman: Chairman Cotton, thanks for the question. I did hear a little bit about the great team in Arkansas there, and I know 855 CPT operates from that formation. For us, certainly looking at a number of different initiatives, one, ensure that we can share all of the relevant top-secret classified information and other sort of indications and warning that the organizations need. But I will tell you, I'm an advocate for an ability to establish some sort of joint reserve cyber organization, and so that at CyberCom, we can ensure that those organizations have all of the advanced training that they need to ensure that those organizations have access to all of the intelligence that they need, and to ensure that we control some level of funding at both CyberCom and NSA that can be used to mobilize those personnel to handle the most difficult problems.

[44:04] Cotton: Thank you.

[44:06] Cotton: Thank you, General Hartman.

[44:08] Cotton: And I think that's the most important thing that we can do to ensure that we can have the best intelligence that we're faced with. And we have been working with Congress on some of that language and the department, and we appreciate it, sir.

[44:12] Cotton: Thank you, General Hartman.

[44:14] Cotton: As I said in my opening, we only have this one public hearing a year, even though the committee hears from each of you several times throughout the year in classified settings, so we don't often have a chance to tell the American people what great work their intelligence professionals are doing for them. So, Director Ratcliffe, could you take the opportunity to maybe join in the excellent work that you're doing?

[44:30] Ratcliffe: Sure.

[44:38] Ratcliffe: I'm going to take the opportunity to share with you some of the important briefings that Secretary Hegseth and General Cain have provided on a regular basis over the last couple months on the military aspects of both the Maduro raid and Operation Epic Fury to explain the CIA's contributions to those operations.

[44:51] Cotton: Thank you, Senator.

[44:53] Ratcliffe: You know, last year when I was here and in my confirmation, I promised you all, and you had all asked for, a more aggressive CIA, one that was focused on core mission. Get it? Yes. And I'm getting back to the business of stealing secrets. To be able to provide our policymakers with a decisive strategic advantage that would allow and advance and contribute to foreign policy and national security successes.

[45:23] Ratcliffe: To the credit of the CIA workforce, the CIA has delivered. Some of those successes have been very public. As you mentioned, Senator, Operation Midnight Hammer. Operation Absolute Resolve. Flawless military operations like that are hostage to a flawless intelligence picture. And the CIA, as you know from classified briefings, contributed in myriad ways to the success of that.

[45:52] Ratcliffe: But what I would say to you is those successes are just emblematic of the phenomenal progress and success really by every measure, every metric, every standard across every national security space.

[46:04] Ratcliffe: With regard to the work of the CIA, Senator, you mentioned some of it in your opening. The increase of our assets stable and our human sources up by 25%. Our FI collection across the board, our foreign intelligence collection up by 25% overall. And in important categories like China, for instance, up 100%. In areas like tech and AI, up 45%. On the counter narcotics front, our eye on the ground. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. On the narcotics front, our operations up by 70%. And with regard to counterterrorism, those are classified numbers that I'll share with you in the classified portion of this hearing, but they're off the charts good.

[46:46] Ratcliffe: The best way I can summarize it, Senator, is I had a 32-year veteran of the agency retire this year, and he said to me, I hate to go. I don't know if this is the best year that the CIA has ever had, but it's the best year I can ever remember. And I think that reflects the current morale. It's a workforce that knows it's doing a great job. It knows that it's being allowed to do what they signed up to do, which is provide that decisive strategic advantage to our country for great successes that everyone can see.

[47:17] Ratcliffe: So I thank you for the opportunity to let me recognize the CIA workforce.

[47:22] Ratcliffe: Thank you.

[47:23] Cotton: Director Ratcliffe, I want to address one specific threat from Iran, the threat of an intercontinental missile, which is really just the combination of two types of missiles. One is the F-16. The other is the F-16. I think it's one of the most powerful, and it's a very powerful missile, and it's one of the most powerful technologies. One thrust to get something into space and a reentry vehicle to get it back to Earth. Iran has always had a space launch program, which is flimsy cover for the first part of that intercontinental missile program. I haven't seen any Iranian astronauts in space lately. And second, they have medium-range ballistic missiles, which already have a reentry vehicle. So if you crudely married those two technologies together, I've heard some analysts say that Iran could have had a functioning intercontinental missile to help them. But Iran has not yet been able to have an intercontinental missile to threaten the United States in as few as six months.

[47:31] Cotton: Would you agree with that assessment?

[48:08] Ratcliffe: Well, you're right to be concerned about Iran's development of long-range ballistic missiles, Senator. If Iran were allowed to develop at the IRBM ranges, which is 3,000 kilometers, it would threaten most of Europe. And, yes, as you mentioned, we know that Iran is gaining experience in these larger, more powerful booster technologies through its so-called space launch vehicle program. If left unimpeded, yes, Senator, they would have the ability to range missiles to the continental U.S. It's one of the reasons why degrading Iran's missile production capabilities that is taking place right now in Operation Epic Fury is so important to our national security.

[48:59] Cotton: Thank you.

[49:00] Vice Chairman: Vice Chairman.

[49:01] Vice Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[49:03] Vice Chairman: Director Gabbard, the whole country knows that you were recently involved in an FBI operation to seize ballots in Fulton County, Georgia. Yet this was despite the fact that the warrant showed no foreign interference or nexus. As a matter of fact, the warrant was based entirely on conspiracy theories that have already been examined and rejected repeatedly. Now, where is the authority for you to involve yourself in a domestic law enforcement activity?

[49:39] Gabbard: Thank you, Vice Chairman. I appreciate the question. As you know, I have addressed every issue raised in detail in a letter, but I'm grateful for the opportunity to do it in this forum. As you stated, Congress provided by statute, ODI with the responsibility of election security and counterintelligence in 2021. As you stated, Congress provided by statute, ODI with the responsibility of election security and counterintelligence in 2021. As you also know, ODI has purview and overview over domestic related agencies, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, both of which have purview over election security responsibilities to ensure the integrity of our elections.

[50:23] Gabbard: I want to correct one of your statements that you've made multiple times which is false. I did not participate in a law enforcement activity, nor would I, because that does not exist within my authorities. I was at Fulton County. Are the photos of you on the scene false? I was at Fulton County, sir, at the request of the president, and to work with the FBI to observe this action that had long been awaited. I was not aware of what was in the warrant or was not in the warrant. And to say thank you to the FBI agents for their work.

[50:59] Vice Chairman: What was the specific request that was made by the president for you to show up in Fulton County?

[51:02] Gabbard: To go and observe the FBI's activities on this issue.

[51:15] Vice Chairman: Then why was he sending you to Fulton County?

[51:24] Gabbard: This occurred the day that the FBI had it approved, their warrant approved by a local judge, and they began to execute this.

[51:42] Gabbard: I address your question, sir, about the foreign nexus question. In order for us to better understand the vulnerabilities in our election systems that may exist today as we look to 2026.

[51:57] Vice Chairman: You have not provided any of the required reports or briefings to this committee on foreign interference. This is the first threat assessment since 2017 that didn't even mention foreign interference. Last year when you were in—

[52:06] Gabbard: Already confirmed, it mentioned it at high level.

[52:12] Vice Chairman: Are you saying there is no foreign threat to our elections in the midterms this year?

[52:26] Gabbard: Yes.

[52:27] Vice Chairman: Thank you.

[52:27] Vice Chairman: Is there foreign threat interference to our elections this year?

[52:31] Gabbard: That the president has laid out. Are there foreign—

[52:34] Gabbard: Please allow me to answer the question, sir. The intelligence community has been and continues to remain focused on any collection and intelligence products that show a potential foreign threat for those who are seeking to—

[52:47] Vice Chairman: So far, there has been none then because you've made no reports in our election system.

[52:52] Vice Chairman: Excuse me, ma'am. If you want to ask the questions, you should have stayed in Congress. Please answer the questions.

[52:53] Gabbard: I didn't ask you a question, sir. I'm trying to answer your questions.

[52:56] Vice Chairman: So you're saying the failure to provide any reports or the failure to have any mention of a foreign threat assessment, I would draw the conclusion there must be no foreign threat to our elections in 2026.

[53:12] Vice Chairman: So that brings me a question that I have for both you, ma'am, and Director Patel. There are reports that in 2020, the president was preparing an executive order to potentially seize ballots or bring in federal forces. There is a published report that there is a similar EO being drafted right now about 2026, citing China. Director Patel, do you have any knowledge of that draft EO?

[53:35] Patel: Thank you, Vice Chairman. I do not, sir.

[53:37] Gabbard: I do not.

[53:41] Vice Chairman: Let me move to Iran. Now, I understand and I appreciated Director Gabbard's comments yesterday about agreeing that the president has sole authority, I guess, in his bones to declare whether something is an imminent threat. I didn't agree. I agreed with your friend, Mr. Kent, but I didn't, again, I agreed with him yesterday on the fact that there was no imminent threat.

[54:06] Cotton: I guess what I'm concerned about one thing is even in your printed testimony today on page six and your last paragraph on page six as a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated, there's been no efforts to try to rebuild their enrichment capability, you omitted that.

[54:26] Gabbard: Thank you.

[54:27] Cotton: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman.

[54:28] Cotton: I agree with you.

[54:29] Cotton: And I think, again, it's a matter of debate.

[54:15] Senator Collins: I'm concerned about your testimony on page six, which states Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by Operation Midnight Hammer with no efforts to rebuild it. You omitted that detail.

[54:26] Director Gabbard: Thank you.

[54:27] Director Gabbard: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman.

[54:28] Director Gabbard: I agree with you.

[54:29] Director Gabbard: I think this is a matter of debate.

[54:30] Director Gabbard: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman.

[54:31] Senator Collins: While you're on that point, what about the paragraph in your oral opening? Was that omitted because the president said there was an imminent threat two weeks ago?

[54:43] Director Gabbard: No, sir. I recognized the time was running long and skipped portions of my oral remarks.

[54:49] Senator Collins: So you chose to omit the parts contradicting the president.

[54:55] Senator Collins: The president continues to say he had no idea and was shocked that Iranians moved to take strategic initiative over the Strait of Hormuz. Did you provide intelligence indicating Iran wouldn't move there?

[55:04] Director Gabbard: I'm not aware of those remarks. Historically, Iranians have always threatened to leverage control over the Strait of Hormuz.

[55:12] Senator Collins: Why would the president say he was amazed?

[55:19] Director Gabbard: I'm not aware of those remarks.

[55:22] Senator Collins: What about the president's comments that he was surprised Iran struck adjacent Gulf states?

[55:29] Director Gabbard: Again, I'm not aware of those remarks.

[55:32] Director Gabbard: We have been and continue to provide the intelligence.

[55:34] Senator Collins: Did you brief the president that if he starts a war of choice, Iran would strike Gulf nations and close the Strait of Hormuz?

[55:44] Director Gabbard: I have not and won't divulge internal conversations. I will say we provide the president all objective intelligence available to inform his decisions.

[56:12] Senator Collins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[56:14] Senator Collins: Director Gabbard, you testified ISIS and Al Qaeda are significantly weaker, yet you've reduced budgets and personnel for counterterrorism. But ISIS is growing in Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, and Iraq.

[56:26] Director Gabbard: Thank you.

[56:55] Director Gabbard: I value your transparency with 90% confidence in the President. I'm running one of the budgets, and we've been diverting resources from counterterrorism, which I disagree with.

[56:56] Director Gabbard: As I've said repeatedly, terrorists want and can kill Americans today. We've seen recent attacks, like the synagogue in Michigan.

[57:14] Director Gabbard: We're seeing more individual radicalization through Islamist propaganda, not necessarily contact with ISIS or Al Qaeda. This remains a top priority.

[57:46] Director Gabbard: Counterterrorism efforts are more active today than in a long time. Our National Counterterrorism Center is ramping up. We're dedicating all resources to this persistent threat.

[58:07] Senator Collins: Director Patel, ISIS targets recruits online via social media, gaming platforms, and encrypted apps. They even facilitated weapon smuggling. How are you preventing recruitment while protecting privacy rights?

[58:14] Director Patel: They've shifted to online recruitment, making terrorist organizations more powerful. We've expanded resources to the Threat Screening Center for biometric capabilities globally.

[58:20] Director Patel: We've had double-digit increases in resources and intelligence production. Using biometric data, we detected four terrorist attacks in December—three ISIS-inspired—in California, Texas, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

[58:56] Director Patel: We stopped a bombing campaign in Southern California and two mass casualty events for New Year's Eve using online and in-person detection.

[59:00] Senator Collins: Director Gabbard, the intelligence community failed to detect a serious breach in telecommunications due to Chinese Typhoon incursions, threatening critical infrastructure like the electric grid and communication systems. What are you doing about this?

[59:53] Director Gabbard: Thank you. We're working with NSA and others to detect evolving threats. Building strong private-sector partnerships across telecom, finance, healthcare, and energy is a priority I'm rebuilding.

[1:00:00] Director Gabbard: Industry leaders are as concerned as we are about critical infrastructure threats but feel disconnected from necessary information.

[1:00:11] Senator Wyden: Director Gabbard, last year intelligence agencies stated Iran's conventional forces could disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Did the intelligence community stick to this assessment before the recent conflict?

[1:00:20] Director Gabbard: The intelligence community has provided ongoing assessments to the President regarding Iran.

[1:00:45] Senator Wyden: There's a global energy crisis. It seems the intelligence community hedged on foreseeable consequences. Did you assess Iran could respond to a regime change attack by attacking U.S. forces in the region?

[1:01:00] Director Gabbard: The IC has always taken Iranian missile capabilities seriously regarding troop safety in the region.

[1:01:18] Senator Wyden: Donald Trump said no experts thought Iran would hit Gulf states. Did the intelligence community assess Iran could strike U.S. partners if attacked?

[1:01:32] Director Gabbard: The IC continues to assess regional threats and provide assessments to policymakers.

[1:01:45] Senator Cornyn: Director Patel, in 2023 your predecessor testified the FBI doesn't purchase commercial location data from internet advertising. Is that still true?

[1:01:53] Director Patel: The FBI uses all tools consistent with the Constitution and ECPA. We purchase commercially available information for intelligence purposes.

[1:02:08] Senator Cornyn: So you're buying Americans' location data?

[1:02:18] Senator Cornyn: This is an end run around the Fourth Amendment. It's dangerous with AI combing through private data. Congress needs to pass the Government Surveillance Reform Act.

[1:02:29] Director Patel: The FBI's purchases are legally compliant. For example, we locate child molesters or cartel leaders using such data.

[1:02:43] Senator Cornyn: General Hartman, Section 702 of FISA was expanded to include more companies. Did this yield intelligence?

[1:02:55] General Hartman: Section 702 allows collecting foreign intelligence on personnel outside the U.S. I prefer discussing specifics in closed session.

[1:03:05] Senator Cornyn: It's a dangerously broad provision. The bill was jammed into the 2024 reauthorization.

[1:03:20] General Hartman: Section 702 doesn't target Americans with cable boxes or Wi-Fi routers. It only collects foreign intelligence outside the U.S.

[1:03:35] Senator Cornyn: Director Patel, do you still buy Americans' location data?

[1:03:45] Director Patel: We purchase commercially available information consistent with the law. It's similar to law enforcement reviewing trash you put on the curb.

[1:03:55] Senator King: Director Ratcliffe, yesterday the National Counterterrorism Center head resigned, saying Iran isn't an imminent threat. Is there evidence Iran has ceased nuclear ambitions or missile development?

[1:04:10] Director Ratcliffe: I disagree with Mr. Kent. The intelligence reflects Iran's continued threat. Any fair assessment shows Iran poses immediate danger to the U.S.

[1:04:25] Senator King: Iran has been at war with the West since 1979. Isn't it true they've caused American bloodshed?

[1:04:35] Director Ratcliffe: Absolutely correct. Iran has been a constant threat since the revolution.

[1:04:45] Senator King: Director Patel, recent incidents include a Texas shooter with an Iranian flag shirt and a Virginia case where someone released after supporting ISIS committed another attack. How does the FBI collaborate with Homeland Security Investigations?

[1:05:05] Director Patel: We collaborate through 59 Homeland Security Task Forces co-led by FBI and DHS. These units reduced homicides in New Orleans by double digits during Mardi Gras.

[1:05:20] Director Patel: We're in 59 cities to combat terrorism and violence. For example, we've removed violent gang members, ISIS-affiliated individuals, and Al-Qaeda-related persons from communities.

[1:05:40] Senator King: Are you aware Senate Democrats voted against funding DHS, including HSI?

[1:05:50] Director Patel: I'm aware DHS employees are unpaid, causing TSA overburden. Not funding DHS makes Americans less safe.

[1:06:05] Senator King: Do you investigate cases like the 190,000 unvetted Afghan nationals?

[1:06:15] Director Patel: Yes. We're vetting them with DHS partners to remove threats like the individual who shot military personnel in D.C.

[1:06:25] Senator King: Director Gabbard and Ratcliffe, were you present when the President decided on the Iran action?

[1:06:35] Director Ratcliffe: I've had dozens of briefings with the President. I don't recall a single meeting where a decision was made.

[1:06:45] Senator King: Were you present during the two weeks before the decision?

[1:06:50] Director Ratcliffe: During that period, yes.

[1:06:52] Senator King: Director Gabbard, were you present?

[1:06:55] Director Gabbard: Yes. There's a discrepancy between intelligence community reports and the President's statements about this action.

[1:21:38] Senator: During that period?

[1:21:40] Senator: During that period.

[1:21:41] Senator: Director Gabbard, were you present in those discussions?

[1:21:45] Director Gabbard: Likewise, yes.

[1:21:46] Senator: The reason I'm asking the question is, there seems to be a discrepancy between what the Intelligence Community has reported over the years and what the President has said regarding his actions. For example, Senator Wyden read a report from a year ago indicating strikes against neighboring states and action to close the Strait of Hormuz were predicted by the intelligence community, yet the President says nobody knew. My question is, did you tell him?

[1:22:26] Director Gabbard: With regard to briefings, the President receives constant intelligence briefings. The comments you mentioned, I had not heard, but I can tell you Iran had specific plans to hit U.S. interests in energy sites across the region. That's why the Department of Defense and Department of State took force and personnel protection measures in advance of Operation Epic Fury. I believe that's most important. Any predictions about the Strait of Hormuz— all you need to do is look at a map to see its vulnerability. Was that part of the briefing?

[1:22:34] Senator: Director Gabbard, I think Director Ratcliffe made the point that this has long been an IC assessment that Iran would likely hold the Strait of Hormuz as leverage. My question is, was that communicated to the President in the lead-up to this because of that long-standing assessment?

[1:22:40] Director Gabbard: The Department of Defense and State Department took preemptive planning measures based on Iran's plans. They did not plan for the Strait of Hormuz closure. The President said, "Who knew that was going to happen?" Let's move on.

[1:23:34] Senator: Does the President take a daily intelligence brief?

[1:23:53] Director Gabbard: This is a yes or no question. Yes, the President receives briefings on intelligence and security. In my estimation, I brief the President of the United States on intelligence and security about 10 to 15 times per week, sometimes three or four times a day on specific issues. My interactions with the President on national security matters average 10 to 15 times per week.

[1:23:57] Senator: Could you update us on intelligence regarding Russian intelligence sharing with Iran in the current conflict? What do we know?

[1:24:40] Director Ratcliffe: If there is such sharing, that would be appropriate for a closed session. The media has reported it as open source. If it is occurring, that would be appropriate for a closed session.

[1:24:50] Director Ratcliffe: According to the Department of Defense, any support Iran may be receiving is not inhibiting their operational effects.

[1:24:55] Senator: That's the first cousin of a yes, I guess. According to intelligence analysis, can regime change or elections be a factor in the outcome of the war?

[1:25:31] Senator: I think that's a very important question. Dr. Nadmer, what would Baiyan say about the riskiest thing he's ever done being stop paying your debt?

[1:25:58] Director Gabbard: I would have to defer that to a closed session.

[1:26:04] Senator: Okay, I'll see you in an hour.

[1:26:08] Senator: Finally, there was very little, if anything, in the report about climate change, which has been in past reports. The estimates are that climate migrants will range from 200 million to a billion people by 2050 due to changes in the climate. Do you believe that is a national security threat that should be addressed?

[1:26:37] Director Gabbard: The Syrian refugee crisis was about 6 million people, which upset European politics for several years. We're discussing 200 million to a billion people on the move. I believe that's something we should discuss and for the intelligence community to assess.

[1:26:58] Senator: Director Gabbard.

[1:27:01] Director Gabbard: Yes, Senator.

[1:27:01] Senator: There are a number of questions I have, and migration is driven by multiple factors. Including every single one would make the annual threat assessment extensive and voluminous. This assessment focuses on priorities laid out by the President's National Security Strategy and on actions we can take to protect U.S. interests.

[1:27:27] Senator: I would suggest combating climate change as something we can take action on.

[1:27:30] Senator: Mr. Chairman.

[1:27:32] Senator: On media reports about Russian or Chinese collaboration with Iran, I point out that the media is not a classification authority. Such stories, whether true or not, might be better suited for the FBI to investigate for unlawful disclosures of classified information.

[1:27:46] Senator: 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 such things.

[1:28:11] Senator: On the Patty Murray legislation, it would not only defund ICE and CBP but also defund Homeland Security Investigations, which does critical work on financial crimes, predators, and transnational gangs. We do not want to defund the police, this time the immigration police.

[1:28:31] Senator: Chairman, thank you.

[1:28:32] Senator: I believe it is in the U.S. national interest, our security interest, for Ukraine to succeed in defeating the Russian invasion. I am concerned about the consequences of Operation Epic Fury on Ukraine's ability to defend its borders.

[1:28:59] Senator: General Adams, in broad terms, not classified, what are the consequences to Ukraine's security interests?

[1:29:00] General Adams: I think the U.S. has responsibility for supply chain effects on our ability to supply NATO allies and Ukraine. We continue to observe global crises like Russia and Ukraine beyond Epic Fury.

[1:29:24] Senator: My question is how we do both—maintain or diminish U.S. support for Ukraine as a result of Epic Fury?

[1:29:31] General Adams: We do continue to observe what is happening across the world in crises like Russia and Ukraine. Unfortunately, based on force composition, the advantage is currently with Russian forces over Ukrainian forces. We can discuss supply chain and Defense Intelligence Agency information in the classified session.

[1:29:59] Senator: Well, General, please be prepared for the classified session to continue this.

[1:30:02] Senator: I don't believe our supply chain issues are classified. Every hearing I'm in as a defense appropriator involves Department of Defense officials discussing the need for further assistance. I'm asking for the facts on what has happened as a result of Epic Fury in our supply to Ukraine and NATO allies.

[1:30:56] General Adams: The Department is executing a comprehensive effort to boost the defense industrial base. We know we must increase our defense industrial base capability. The impact of munitions expended during Epic Fury will be felt, but efforts are underway to boost it.

[1:31:23] Senator: I'm interested in helping accomplish that goal.

[1:31:56] Director Ratcliffe: Perhaps along the same line. I assume you'd like to compliment me on my public service, but I'm used to being the one to receive compliments followed by a "but." I'm interested in being of help. In regard to your conversations in preparation for Epic Fury, I'd like to know if consequences to our ability to defend against Russia or China were taken into account.

[1:32:33] Senator: How was that diminished or increased by Operation Epic Fury, particularly regarding our ability to help Ukraine defend itself?

[1:32:53] Director Ratcliffe: U.S. support for Ukraine includes military and other assistance, as well as economic sanctions against Russia for its invasion. Epic Fury has caused a significant increase in oil prices, and the administration has waived sanctions against Russian oil companies. Russia is reportedly receiving $150 million per day as a result of the waiver.

[1:33:37] Senator: What can you tell me about our plans or your understanding of what's transpiring regarding those oil revenues in favor of Russia due to the sanction waiver?

[1:33:52] Director Ratcliffe: I'll start with a couple things. The same military and intelligence professionals who delivered flawless intelligence and operations for Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Absolute Resolve are involved with Epic Fury. I hope that provides comfort regarding the detail and thoughtfulness of the approach. It's a specific campaign, different from the two mentioned, and the President stated it's a four to six week campaign with costs. The goal is to address a 47-year problem—the most destabilizing force in the Middle East, which prior administrations allowed to become a threat. We must address this while also supporting Ukraine. Sometimes policymakers must take steps that benefit adversaries like Russia or China but also benefit U.S. citizens, such as keeping oil prices low. Intelligence is thoughtfully considered, and I am confident we can pursue Middle East objectives while providing support for Ukraine.

[1:36:24] Senator: Senator Bennett.

[1:36:25] Senator Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Director Ratcliffe, you described the campaign against Iran. I believe it has been one without a specific rationale for the American people. Nineteen days into President Trump's unauthorized war with Iran, at least 13 American service members are dead. There has been no congressional approval. The President has offered no credible justification for an imminent threat, no clear goals or strategy. His message keeps changing. He said Iran's nuclear facilities had been "totally obliterated" in June 2025, but when he launched the war, he said we need to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat of those "totally obliterated" facilities. He threatened to seize Iranian oil and demanded allies reopen the Strait of Hormuz, including China. He said we don't need anyone's help because we have a lot of oil, but then he said we've won the war in the first hour and won't leave until the job is finished. He said there's practically nothing left to bomb but threatened to bomb Iran "just for fun." This should not come from a civilian leader. He said he will end the war when he feels it in his bones, but it's escalating. Thousands of U.S. Marines are reportedly sailing toward Iran on an unclear mission. Our airstrikes wiped out Iran's missiles and supreme leader. The Iranian people now live under martial law with a puppet leader chosen by the IRGC. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and is holding the global economy hostage. The President is surprised by all this, but no one who has looked at our intelligence is surprised. Iran's nuclear program is damaged but still has a uranium stockpile. The DNI said the regime will rebuild its military base. The question is whether this will become a perpetual war because Iran will do what they have always done.

[1:40:32] Senator Bennett: The Intelligence Committee has been clear-eyed about what would happen in the Straits of Hormuz and risks to our military bases and personnel, even though the administration did little to protect them. I know you warned President Trump that if Israel assassinated the Supreme Leader, the IRGC would run and replace him with a harder-line puppet.

[1:41:08] Director Ratcliffe: You mischaracterize this as saying there are no clearly defined goals. The defined goals are clear: degrade and destroy Iran's missile and drone inventory, delay and degrade their military industrial base and factories, and degrade and destroy the IRGC Navy that could control the Strait of Hormuz.

[1:42:13] Senator Bennett: I don't need you to characterize the war. My point is about the lack of clarity. The President was elected on criticism of two 20-year Middle East wars. Now we're hearing testimonies about getting ballistic missiles, not even nuclear. We'll have a perpetual war with Iran, and I don't think the American people are on board. This is a serious threat, but President Trump said we're not the policemen of the world, yet he's turned us into the world's policemen, jury, judge, and executioner.

[1:43:56] Senator: Senator Rounds.

[1:43:58] Senator Rounds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to follow up on the same line. I've seen the threats in classified settings and understand our capabilities. Director Ratcliffe, it's been clear that while Iran was talking diplomatically, they had no intention of eliminating nuclear aspirations. Correct?

[1:44:56] Director Ratcliffe: Senator, that's correct. Diplomatically, they were saying one thing, but intelligence reflected the contrary.

[1:45:10] Senator Rounds: Second, with regard to capabilities, earlier in the 12-day war, their defensive capabilities were taken out, making our aircraft safer. Is it fair to say they were rebuilding their defensive capabilities at that time?

[1:45:42] Director Ratcliffe: Yes.

[1:45:45] Senator Rounds: Operation Midnight Hammer was a success. It resulted in Iran having the same amount of enriched uranium at 60%, meaning they've been unable to enrich uranium at 60% since that operation. They also had short-range ballistic missiles, which they were building while negotiating. Were they building offensive capabilities faster than we could build defensive ones?

[1:47:30] Director Ratcliffe: Yes.

[1:47:32] Senator Rounds: Were they continuing to provide resources to terrorist organizations?

[1:47:42] Director Ratcliffe: Yes.

[1:47:48] Senator Rounds: So while diplomatically negotiating, they continued nuclear intentions, built missile systems, and increased defensive capabilities, making our forces more at risk. I believe the President made the right choice to act when he did.

[1:48:35] Director Ratcliffe: I agree with that.

[1:48:37] Senator Rounds: It's never a good time for war, but at some point you must look at protecting our men and women in harm's way. Director Ratcliffe, I've been in unclassified settings and recognize Havana Syndrome is sensitive. Is there anything you can share to assure people in the agency and State Department that this is not being ignored?

[1:49:39] Director Ratcliffe: Yes, we take it seriously. When I became DNI, there were disparate opinions across the IC about Havana Syndrome's cause, including whether it could be a directed energy weapon from a foreign adversary. I coordinated a comprehensive review with Director Gabbard to ensure it gets the attention it deserves. She is undertaking that review and will brief you further in the classified session.

[1:50:46] Senator Rounds: Thank you.

[1:50:29] Senator Kelly: Director Gabbard and I had a conversation with Senator Hassan where she agreed that she would undertake a comprehensive review of that issue across the IC to ensure it receives the attention it deserves. I know she has undertaken this and will be able to brief you in detail during the classified session. Thank you. One final comment: to General Hartman, your service has been extraordinary. Working with you on the Cybersecurity Subcommittee, I commend you for all you've done. You are truly a hero and have served our country exceptionally well. Thank you for your service.

[1:51:11] Senator Kelly: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today with all our witnesses. For over a decade, the United States has pivoted to Asia in its national defense strategy to confront significant threats from China. Administrations of both parties have identified China as a top threat and worked to build Asian relationships and deter Chinese aggression while bolstering European allies and encouraging greater defense contributions to deter Russia.

[1:52:00] Senator Kelly: Directors Gabbard and Ratcliffe, would you agree that China and Russia are our primary geopolitical rivals?

[1:52:02] Director Gabbard: Yes, they are our primary strategic competitors.

[1:52:06] Senator Kelly: Thank you, Director Ratcliffe.

[1:52:08] Director Ratcliffe: I agree, though I do not consider them equal in terms of the threats they pose.

[1:52:13] Senator Kelly: Regarding the Iran war, it has created one of the largest global oil supply shocks, driving up gas prices. Russia has gained billions in additional oil revenue due to price spikes and loosened sanctions. Directors Gabbard and Ratcliffe, is it accurate that Russia has benefited from increased oil revenue as a result of the war and relaxed sanctions?

[1:52:42] Director Gabbard: That is what has been reported. I defer to the Secretary of the Treasury and Energy for details.

[1:52:53] Director Ratcliffe: I agree with that. I'm not an economist, so I won't attempt those calculations. However, decisions sometimes benefit adversaries while policymakers believe they benefit American people. It's clear sanctions were loosened, meaning more money flows to Vladimir Putin.

[1:53:20] Senator Kelly: Would you agree that if Russia has more funding, it is likely to use it for war efforts?

[1:53:30] Director Gabbard: I defer to an actual intelligence assessment on their intentions.

[1:53:38] Director Ratcliffe: I wouldn't speculate on that.

[1:53:44] Senator Kelly: Is it accurate that China continues to receive preferential oil flows from Iran despite the conflict, with Iran allowing tankers to transit the strait?

[1:53:56] Director Gabbard: There has been reporting of China, India, and other countries moving tankers through the strait, though the volume remains unclear.

[1:54:15] Senator Kelly: So it is accurate.

[1:54:17] Senator Kelly: Director Gabbard, you tweeted that President Trump concluded there was an imminent threat and decided to attack Iran after reviewing all information. I want to know what that information was. I'll ask yes or no questions: Were you asked to brief on whether Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz?

[1:54:54] Director Gabbard: I will not comment on what the President did or did not ask. I am not addressing whether I was briefed.

[1:55:14] Senator Kelly: Director Ratcliffe, were you asked to brief on whether Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz?

[1:55:20] Director Ratcliffe: Briefings to the President typically originate from the intelligence community, not the White House. When we have intelligence the President should know, we provide it.

[1:55:31] Senator Kelly: Did you produce analysis on the Straits of Hormuz?

[1:55:34] Director Ratcliffe: Analysis has been and continues to be produced.

[1:55:44] Senator Kelly: Were you asked to brief on how adversaries and allies would respond to the Iran war?

[1:55:53] Senator Kelly: It's challenging to determine if the White House requested a briefing or if analysis was produced. We're struggling to confirm whether the President knew about potential downsides to closing the Strait of Hormuz.

[1:56:12] Senator Kelly: I'll point out that the intelligence and military communities approached this operation similarly to prior efforts, as I've praised in Operations Midnight Hammer and Absolute Resolve.

[1:56:43] Senator Kelly: We're trying to determine if the President knew the potential consequences of the Strait of Hormuz closing.

[1:56:57] Senator Kelly: I note a fundraising email from the President, dated six days ago, offering "private national security briefings" to donors. Director Gabbard, do you think the public should pay to receive private national security briefings?

[1:57:21] Director Ratcliffe: I assume these are briefings provided to the President, now offered to donors. Regardless of the document, this did not happen. The Hatch Act would prevent such conduct in a political role.

[1:57:58] Senator Kelly: Director Gabbard, do you have any comment on whether unfiltered updates of private national security briefings should be made to donors?

[1:58:13] Director Gabbard: I am not familiar with that document.

[1:58:26] Senator Kelly: I agree with you, Director Ratcliffe, that the Hatch Act should prohibit this. Thank you.

[1:58:36] Senator Lankford: Senator Kelly, you've been a great speaker. I'm proud of you. Thank you for your service to the country and for the sacrifices your family makes. Please pass on our gratitude to the professionals who work hard in difficult times.

[1:58:51] Senator Lankford: You've set a great example for Oklahomans. I want to discuss a threat closer to home: international scammers targeting Americans online, accelerated by AI. In 2024, the FBI reported nearly $17 billion lost to scams, with estimates as high as $50 billion. AI is enabling more sophisticated scams, including fake FBI pages that steal information.

[1:59:58] Senator Lankford: Director Patel, how do we confront these online scams threatening families and seniors?

[2:00:02] Director Patel: The FBI treats this as a high-priority operation, similar to CIC. We've increased funding, moved analysts out of Washington to states like Oklahoma, and expanded the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). We're shutting down networks online and overseas, targeting scam centers in Cambodia, Burma, and Thailand, which are backed by the CCP to harm Americans.

[2:02:09] Director Patel: We've already dismantled numerous compounds in Cambodia, Burma, and Thailand. Our focus is to shut down every single scam center compound overseas.

[2:02:53] Senator Lankford: Director Ratcliffe, the annual threat assessment highlights the Muslim Brotherhood's financing of terrorism. How is the Muslim Brotherhood financing itself, and what must we do to protect Americans?

[2:04:10] Director Ratcliffe: Regarding the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, we view it as we do other proxies like the Houthis. The CIA is focused on counterterrorism. I can publicly state we've accomplished more in the last year than in the past. I'll provide details in the classified session.

[2:05:58] Senator Reid: The Washington Post reported that U.S. intelligence assessments indicate Iran's regime remains in place, weakened but hardline, with the Revolutionary Guard exerting greater control. Director Gabbard, do you stand by this reported assessment?

[2:06:33] Director Gabbard: I do not stand by leaked intelligence to the media. I stand by the intelligence community's assessment in the annual threat report, which states the regime maintains power despite being degraded.

[2:07:08] Senator Reid: Do you think the killing of the ayatollah and family contributed to a hardline successor?

[2:07:25] Director Gabbard: The intelligence community has pointed to multiple scenarios regarding the successor selection. Details are for the classified hearing.

[2:08:16] Senator Reid: The regime's greatest celebration is the martyrdom of the grandson of Mohammed. Did we play into their cultural biases?

[2:08:28] Director Gabbard: I'll address that in the classified session.

[2:08:38] Senator Reid: General Adams, what conditions would be needed for the U.S. to precipitate Iran's regime collapse? Can it be done with air power alone?

[2:09:08] General Adams: The Defense Intelligence Agency has analyzed scenarios with the IC. We track four specific goals for U.S. efforts. I prefer to discuss regime collapse in the classified session.

[2:09:25] Senator Reid: Will air power alone destroy this regime, given their culture and politics?

[2:09:38] General Adams: The joint force can accomplish many missions. I prefer not to guess on what can or cannot be achieved.

[2:10:20] Senator Reid: U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff stated Russian leaders told Trump they weren't sharing intelligence with Iran. Director Gabbard, do you take Putin at his word?

[2:10:36] Director Gabbard: No, I do not take Vladimir Putin at his word.

[2:10:48] Senator Reid: Are they providing intelligence to Iran?

[2:10:56] Director Gabbard: The Iranians are requesting intelligence assistance from Russia, China, and other adversaries. Whether those countries are providing it is for the classified session.

[2:11:33] Senator Ossoff: Director Gabbard, you're responsible for providing national intelligence to the president, executive branch heads, military commanders, and Congress. The law requires this intelligence to be timely, objective, and independent. Your opening statement stated the IC assessed Iran's nuclear program was obliterated by last summer's airstrikes. Is that the IC's assessment?

[2:15:36] Director Gabbard: Yes.

[2:15:38] Senator Ossoff: So the IC assessed Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated?

[2:15:43] Director Gabbard: Yes.

[2:15:55] Senator Ossoff: The White House stated on March 1st that the war was launched to eliminate the "imminent nuclear threat" posed by Iran. Was that the IC's assessment of an imminent threat?

[2:16:40] Director Gabbard: The intelligence community assessed that Iran maintains the intention to rebuild and grow its nuclear enrichment capability.

[2:16:45] Senator Ossoff: Did the IC assess an "imminent nuclear threat" as claimed by the White House?

[2:16:50] Director Gabbard: The president determines what constitutes an imminent threat based on the information received. It is not the IC's responsibility to define that.

[2:17:02] Senator Ossoff: The IC's responsibility is to determine what constitutes a threat. This is the Worldwide Threats Hearing where you represent the IC's assessment. Was it the IC's assessment that there was an imminent nuclear threat? Yes or no.

[2:17:28] Director Gabbard: It is the president's responsibility to determine what constitutes an imminent threat.

[2:17:39] Senator: This is the Worldwide Threats Hearing where, as you noted in your opening testimony, you represent the IC's assessment of threats. You are here to represent the IC's assessment of threats. That's a quote from your own opening statement. My question is, as you're here to present the IC's assessment of threats, was it the assessment of the intelligence community that, as the White House claimed on March 1st, there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no?

[2:17:59] Director Gabbard: Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has provided the inputs that make up this annual threat assessment.

[2:18:16] Senator: You won't answer the question. It is the nature of the imminent threat that the president has to make that determination based on a collection and volume of information and intelligence that he is provided with.

[2:18:26] Director Gabbard: You're here to be timely, objective, and independent of political considerations. Exactly what I'm doing.

[2:18:40] Senator: No, you're evading a question because to provide a candid response to the committee would contradict a statement from the White House.

[2:18:50] Senator: Let me ask you about your presence in Fulton County on January 28th of this year. You were present at the FBI's raid on the Fulton County elections office on January 28th, correct?

[2:18:58] Director Gabbard: I was present for part of the FBI exercising a warrant approved by a municipal judge to obtain evidence.

[2:19:12] Senator: Yes, and the FBI was there executing that warrant to seize ballots and materials associated with the 2020 election, correct?

[2:19:19] Director Gabbard: Yes.

[2:19:20] Senator: And are you aware that members of this committee have already opened inquiries into your election-related activities?

[2:19:28] Director Gabbard: Yes.

[2:19:29] Senator: And are you aware that your general counsel and deputy general counsel have already provided testimony to this committee regarding those activities?

[2:19:35] Director Gabbard: Yes.

[2:19:40] Senator: On February 2nd, you sent a letter to Senator Warner regarding your presence at the raid. Was that letter accurate?

[2:19:42] Director Gabbard: I don't recall the exact date, but if I sent a letter that had my signature, it was accurate.

[2:19:48] Senator: You stated in the letter that your presence at the raid was very important. You stated that you requested your presence at the raid by the president, correct?

[2:19:50] Director Gabbard: Yes.

[2:19:52] Senator: When did the president request your presence at the raid?

[2:19:56] Director Gabbard: The day of the raid, the warrant execution commencing.

[2:20:02] Senator: The day of the raid? He called you on the phone?

[2:20:04] Director Gabbard: I'm not going to disclose how the message was delivered, but it was a request from the president and his administration to go and help oversee this warrant being executed along with the deputy director of the FBI and to thank the FBI agents conducting this warrant.

[2:20:20] Senator: Is it your role to oversee execution of criminal warrants? It is my role based on statute that Congress has passed to have oversight over election security, including counterintelligence. You just testified you oversaw the raid. Portions of it. Did you handle any ballots or election-related materials?

[2:20:28] Director Gabbard: No, I was inside an FBI evidence truck.

[2:20:32] Senator: You were photographed inside an FBI empty truck.

[2:20:34] Director Gabbard: Yes.

[2:20:37] Senator: The president stated you did not look at the votes that wanted to be checked out. Did you look at votes as the president said?

[2:20:42] Senator: Senator Ossoff, your time has expired.

[2:20:45] Senator: I'm happy to respond to questions for the record.

[2:20:50] Senator: 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.

[2:21:40] Senator: 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.

[2:21:55] Senator: 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.

[2:22:13] Senator: I 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, a Hoosier. I invite everyone to join Senator Young in praying for the family and friends of that soldier and all soldiers who have given their lives in the defense of our freedom and security.

[2:22:42] Senator: General Hartman, I want to thank you. I want to again acknowledge you given your impending retirement since this is your last appearance for the committee. I'm sure you hope and I'm sure that the thing you'll miss most about your long career in uniform is testifying before Congress.

[2:23:01] Senator: I remind members that questions for the record will be due by the close of business on Friday, March 20. The audience will remain seated so that our witnesses and members may exit and proceed promptly to the closed session.

[2:23:11] Senator: This open session is adjourned.