Gabbard Rebukes Media for Misreporting Iran Strike Damage: “Selective Leaks Mislead Public”

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard issued a sharp rebuttal Wednesday to recent media reports suggesting the United States’ precision airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure caused only limited damage. The reports, published by CNN and The New York Times and based on anonymous sources, were denounced by Gabbard as misleading and reliant on incomplete intelligence assessments.

The strikes, part of a coordinated operation last week targeting Iran’s critical nuclear enrichment sites, were publicly praised by former President Donald Trump, who said they had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities. However, early stories in the media questioned the effectiveness of the attack, citing low-confidence Pentagon assessments that suggested limited or superficial damage, particularly to the Fordow facility.

The Fordow site, known for being heavily fortified and buried deep underground, was reportedly struck with multiple bunker-buster bombs. Yet, unnamed sources quoted in the articles claimed that much of the damage was confined to surface infrastructure and that Iran could potentially rebuild within a short time.

Gabbard responded in her first official statement on the matter, accusing both media outlets of taking intelligence out of context. She emphasized that the assessment in question was labeled “low confidence” and was part of an early-stage analysis, not a finalized evaluation.

“New intelligence confirms what President Trump has consistently stated: Iran’s nuclear enrichment centers at Natanz, Fordow, and Esfahan have been rendered inoperable,” Gabbard posted on X. “If Iran wants to resume its program, it would need to rebuild these facilities from the ground up — a process that would take years.”

She further accused the media of intentionally distorting the intelligence for political reasons. “The propaganda media strikes again. They’ve cherry-picked from a leaked, low-confidence preliminary report to undermine the success of a mission that was both strategically critical and flawlessly executed,” Gabbard said.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed Gabbard’s sentiment during a NATO summit in the Netherlands, taking direct aim at the media’s portrayal of the operation, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer.

“These were some of the most skilled pilots and personnel on the planet, flying into hostile airspace for 36 hours straight to neutralize a threat not just to America, but to the world,” Hegseth said. “For CNN and The New York Times to suggest otherwise, to downplay the heroism and effectiveness of this mission, is more than disingenuous — it’s disgraceful.”

Hegseth confirmed that the Pentagon is working with the FBI to identify the source of the leak. “This document was classified, top secret, and preliminary,” he noted. “We’re investigating how it was released and why. What we do know is that it appears to have been done for political motives.”

He also insisted that later and more comprehensive assessments contradicted the narrative being pushed by the media. “When you look at the full intelligence picture, we’re seeing far more substantial damage than what was initially reported. We believe the strikes achieved their intended outcome, and then some.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also weighed in, condemning the leak and those responsible. “This appears to be the work of an anonymous, low-level bureaucrat with an agenda,” Leavitt said during a briefing. “The unauthorized release of classified material undermines national security and disrespects the brave men and women who carried out this mission.”

Leavitt emphasized that President Trump had been fully briefed on the operation’s outcomes and stood by his characterization of its success. “The president’s remarks are based on confirmed intelligence from multiple agencies, not selectively leaked, politically motivated speculation.”

Critics of the media’s reporting say the incident reflects a broader trend of selectively releasing sensitive information in a way that sows doubt or controversy, particularly around military or foreign policy actions under conservative leadership.

Supporters of the administration argue that the successful dismantling of key Iranian nuclear sites represents a major strategic victory, and that any attempts to downplay that reality do a disservice to the public and the armed forces.

As the FBI continues its probe into the leak, intelligence officials are expected to release a more comprehensive, declassified summary of the operation’s outcomes in the coming weeks. Until then, the public narrative remains contested, with battle lines drawn not just in the Middle East, but in Washington and the press.