‘Trump allies SECRETLY MOCKED her!’: Laura Loomer’s explosive bombshell on Tulsi Gabbard’s WH exit

Added: 2026-06-01

[00:00:08][music] >> Right-wing influencer Laura Loomer has claimed Trump allies secretly mocked Tulsi Gabbard with harsh nicknames long before her resignation stunned Washington. She reportedly claimed that insiders around Donald Trump deeply distrusted Gabbard during her tenure as DNI at the White House. This after Gabbard announced she will step down as director of national intelligence by June 30th after her husband's cancer diagnosis.

[00:00:38]>> [music] >> In her resignation letter, Gabbard said she must leave public service to support her husband Abraham Williams through treatment.

[00:00:47]The former Hawaii congresswoman described Abraham Williams as her rock during deployments, campaigns, and years in politics.

[00:00:55]But Laura Loomer celebrated the resignation online declaring that Trump allies were relieved to see Gabbard finally leave.

[00:01:03]Loomer alleged some insiders privately mocked the DNI office with the nickname do not invite during Gabbard's She claimed Trump allies believed Gabbard constantly undermined the president and clashed with CYA director John Ratcliffe.

[00:01:19]Loomer also accused Gabbard of allowing damaging leaks that weakened national security and frustrated White House officials. The far-right influencer claimed months ago that Gabbard's departure was inevitable because of growing tensions inside MAGA circles.

[00:01:33]Loomer alleged that many conservatives viewed Gabbard with suspicion despite her strong public support for Donald Trump. She claimed critics inside the administration believed Gabbard focused too heavily on internal political battles and media disputes. Loomer further accused Gabbard's allies of leaking information to conservative media personalities including Tucker Carlson. The explosive claims have reignited divisions within Trump's [music] political movement over loyalty and foreign policy priorities. Gabbard has not publicly responded to Lumer's accusations or the claims about secret nicknames from Trump insiders. Her resignation comes during a politically [music] sensitive moment as Trump pushes for tighter control over intelligence operations. Tucker Gabbard, we've known each other for a long time. We were both elected to Congress in 2012 and served together for a while. I may not have always agreed with your positions, but I respected the consistency of some of your positions. Director Gabbard, following the January 3rd, 2020 drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, you gave a speech on the House floor 6 days later, on January 9th, 2020.

[00:02:43]In the speech that is firmly in the congressional record and available for anyone to view, you stated, quote, "President Trump has committed an illegal and unconstitutional act of war, pushing our nation headlong into a war with Iran without any authorization from Congress. A war that so the stating it would make our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look like a picnic."

[00:03:08]On February 28th, 2026, the Trump administration, under which you are the president's principal intelligence advisor, launched an illegal and unconstitutional act of war, pushing our nation headlong into a war with Iran without any authorization from Congress.

[00:03:25]This war has already been costly and devastating. 13 American service members have lost their lives, including Chief Warrant Officer Robert Marsden from my home of Sacramento, California.

[00:03:36]Approximately 200 service members have been wounded. The Pentagon reported that the first 6 days of Operation Epic Fury cost $11.3 billion. That averages almost $2 billion per day.

[00:03:50]That was the first 6 days, and now we're in the 19th day of this war.

[00:03:54]That's ballooned into a regional conflict putting the lives of Americans and our allies throughout the Middle East in danger.

[00:04:01]Director Gabbard, do you still believe that strikes against Iran that don't have congressional authorization constitute an illegal and unconstitutional act of war?

[00:04:11]Uh Congressman, thank you for the question. Um the cost of war uh weighs very heavily uh upon me and and uh my colleagues here. Uh especially for those of us who have experienced and seen the cost of war firsthand. Okay. Uh my own personal and political views, as I mentioned earlier, uh I was asked and required by Congress and by the president uh in this role as the Director of National Intelligence to check those views at the door to ensure that the intelligence assessments are not colored by my personal views. And that's exactly what I am responsible to Do you still believe that war with Iran would be so costly and devastating that it would make our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look like a picnic?

[00:04:55]>> Once again, in this role, uh it is essential that I do not allow any of my personal views on any issues to color or bias the intelligence reporting that we deliver to you and to the president. Director Gabbard, um in this hearing 1 year ago, um I asked some questions um and I'll paraphrase um my exact question. It's like we should keep politics out of this even if the president disagrees um with a directive, if it goes against his personal wishes, if he's considering an order that potentially is unconstitutional or illegal, or compromises our security, I want your word that we will you will always provide and give the honest advice to the president even if it will make him angry. I asked you that question. I'm going to read your answer um And to your specific question, the answer is yes. I will inform the president of that accurate, timely, unbiased intelligence reporting, whether it is something that agrees with an assumption or a view or an objective or not. That's my responsibility to him and to the American people. Director Gabbert, did you There is no imminent threat of nuclear breakout. Did you deliver that assessment to the president?

[00:06:11]I have delivered the intelligence community's assessments to the president.

[00:06:15]There was no imminent nuclear threat to the United States. There was no evidence of imminence that Iran was going to attack American assets that was different from anything they've done over four decades, that was going to attack our homeland.

[00:06:31]Um, there was no imminent threat.

[00:06:33]Imminent is defined in the dictionary as something that is about to happen.

[00:06:38]Not something that's been happening for four decades, not something that is going to happen three months from now, not something that's going to happen a year from now. Imminent said, this is about to happen. Did you deliver that assessment to the president?

[00:06:50]I delivered the intelligence community's objective analysis of the threats, the severity of those threats, and the scope, along with assessments of the different scenarios and context that exists within the Middle East. The The president owes it to the American people to go on television to explain to the American people, to the service members who have died in action serving our country, why we are at war with Iran. He needs to go on television and explain that directly to the American people what the imminent threat was.

[00:07:23]Gentlemen's time has expired. I would advise the um members that a vote has been called. It's a single vote. And if members want to shuttle back and forth so we can maintain the continuity of the hearing, we'll do that. So, if you start to see it, just to our witnesses, you know how this works. Uh, they'll be moving in and out to go address that vote and then returning to their seat.

[00:07:41]But, um, at this [clears throat] time I recognize Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, for the record I would like to submit an article from Politico dated February 24th, 2026, and the title of it is ahead of State of the Union Dems demand Trump make Iran plans public. Um I think most Americans understand that if the President of the United States makes those plans public, then the enemies get to see them Without Without objection, so ordered. And that was the date of the State of the Union. Director Patel, I'm going to come to you very quickly, and then I'm going to move on, but I I listened closely to um Senator Lankford's testimony yesterday about fraud and and and the other things that are going on, and I want to bring your attention um This was in March 25th of 2024, an unsuspecting Uber driver named Liletha Toland Hall drove to a house near Columbus, Ohio to pick up a package. She had no idea that the 81-year-old man who lived there had just received a a series of phone calls from scammers who had threatened to kill him if he did not give the woman coming to his house $12,000 in cash.

[00:08:51]He killed the lady, so she's dead. He now has a life sentence. Are you aware of any action or investigation that the Justice Department has taken to pursue justice, to bring the scammers, and put them and make them pay for what they did?

[00:09:07]I think you're referring to you, Congressman, scam centers and scam compounds that are wreaking havoc on our citizens. I'm referring to this individual case. This lady was murdered, and a man now has life in prison. I can't speak to that individual case. I can tell you what we're doing generally if you wish, but I