In a recent exchange on Capitol Hill, the Director of National Intelligence refused to answer a basic question: whether the intelligence community assessed an imminent nuclear threat from Iran.
Instead, she claimed that only the President can determine whether a threat is “imminent.”
That statement is not just misleading—it directly contradicts one of the intelligence community’s core missions.
In this episode, I break down:
* The fundamental principle that intelligence must remain apolitical
* The critical distinction between assessing threats and making policy
* What “warning intelligence” actually is—and why it exists
* Why assessing imminence is not optional, but central to the intelligence function
* How this exchange fits into a broader pattern of politicizing intelligence
Having spent over 25 years in national security, including within the intelligence community, I explain why this isn’t a gray area—and why getting this wrong has real consequences.
If intelligence stops telling the truth about threats, policy stops being grounded in reality.
And that’s when mistakes happen.
The intelligence community doesn’t make policy—but it absolutely determines how serious and how imminent threats are.
That’s called warning intelligence.
So when the Director of National Intelligence claims only the President can determine “imminence,” she’s not drawing a careful line—she’s erasing one.
This isn’t a technical dispute. It’s a breakdown in how intelligence is supposed to work.
Watch this.
