The NYT consistently relying on unnamed sources is quite believable.

Ag with kids said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Quote:

---

EXCLUSIVE: Tulsi Gabbard is resigning from her post as Director of National Intelligence to support her husband through his battle with "an extremely rare form of bone cancer," Fox News Digital learned.

Gabbard notified President Donald Trump during a meeting in the Oval Office Friday. Her last day at ODNI is expected to be June 30.

Fox News Digital exclusively obtained her formal resignation letter, in which Gabbard says she is "deeply grateful for the trust you placed in me and for the opportunity to lead the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for the last year and a half."

"Unfortunately, I must submit my resignation, effective June 30, 2026," she wrote. "My husband, Abraham, has recently been diagnosed with an extremely rare form of bone cancer."

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/exclusive-tulsi-gabbard-resigns-from-trump-cabinet

Not really much to say except prayers for Tulsi and her husband.

And **** cancer.

---

It appears that the NYT has pulled the story they ran yesterday...

They start the story with about 8 paragraphs about how she's been sidelined and an opponent of lots of Trump's foreign policy and that she's "resigning."

Then, there's one sentence about her resigning due to husband's cancer.

Then, back to discussion of how she wasn't getting along with Trump.

The entire story was designed to have you think Trump was forcing her out.

ETA: It appears that K2-HMIC has decided to keep pushing their original story...

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/22/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-resigns.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share


You mean the story which depicts how bad the relationship was?

I'm saying this hasn't been a good fit for a year considering Tulsi's foreign policy leanings are in line with MTG, Massie, and Kent.

The cancer was a way to mutually move on and both sides save face.

---

Trump gave Tulsi's husband CANCER to get rid of her!!!!!! /some lib probably

---

Neah…totally wrong my dude…gonna be Bibi giving her husband Jewish laser cancer from a Ukrainian lab.

bobbranco said:

---

The NYT consistently relying on unnamed sources is quite believable.

---

Based off your interpretation of Tulsi's public statements about foreign policy over the last ten years…do you think she was in line with the admin or out of it?

Remember, she supported JCPOA, Assad, didn't want to do anything with Maduro or Chavez…blamed Trump 1 for trying to start a war with Iran.

I give it six months and she'll be on Shawn Ryan talking about how Bibi led Trump astray.

I think it's obvious there has been some disagreement on policy between Tulsi and Trump/The White House.

She has been much less visible for the admin this year, IMO, than in 2025. This could also be due to the worsening condition of her husband.

Sometimes in life, and I can attest to this personally, it is a compounding of several significant factors, which eventually force an individual to make a very tough decision upon a rank ordering of priorities.

Seems to be the case here. Again, IMO.

Prayers for the Gabbards.

Urban Ag said:

---

I think it's obvious there has been some disagreement on policy between Tulsi and Trump/The White House.

She has been much less visible for the admin this year, IMO, than in 2025. This could also be due to the worsening condition of her husband.

Sometimes in life, and I can attest to this personally, it is a compounding of several significant factors, which eventually force an individual to make a very tough decision upon a rank ordering of priorities.

Seems to be the case here. Again, IMO.

Prayers for the Gabbards.

---

Or it's her wanting to spend time to care for her husband.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Quote:

---

EXCLUSIVE: Tulsi Gabbard is resigning from her post as Director of National Intelligence to support her husband through his battle with "an extremely rare form of bone cancer," Fox News Digital learned.

Gabbard notified President Donald Trump during a meeting in the Oval Office Friday. Her last day at ODNI is expected to be June 30.

Fox News Digital exclusively obtained her formal resignation letter, in which Gabbard says she is "deeply grateful for the trust you placed in me and for the opportunity to lead the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for the last year and a half."

"Unfortunately, I must submit my resignation, effective June 30, 2026," she wrote. "My husband, Abraham, has recently been diagnosed with an extremely rare form of bone cancer."

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/exclusive-tulsi-gabbard-resigns-from-trump-cabinet

Not really much to say except prayers for Tulsi and her husband.

And **** cancer.

---

It appears that the NYT has pulled the story they ran yesterday...

They start the story with about 8 paragraphs about how she's been sidelined and an opponent of lots of Trump's foreign policy and that she's "resigning."

Then, there's one sentence about her resigning due to husband's cancer.

Then, back to discussion of how she wasn't getting along with Trump.

The entire story was designed to have you think Trump was forcing her out.

ETA: It appears that K2-HMIC has decided to keep pushing their original story...

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/22/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-resigns.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share


You mean the story which depicts how bad the relationship was?

I'm saying this hasn't been a good fit for a year considering Tulsi's foreign policy leanings are in line with MTG, Massie, and Kent.

The cancer was a way to mutually move on and both sides save face.

---

Trump gave Tulsi's husband CANCER to get rid of her!!!!!! /some lib probably

---

Neah…totally wrong my dude…gonna be Bibi giving her husband Jewish laser cancer from a Ukrainian lab.

---

That's just what the Tucker Qatarlsons of the world would say...

K2-HMFIC said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

The NYT consistently relying on unnamed sources is quite believable.

---

Based off your interpretation of Tulsi's public statements about foreign policy over the last ten years…do you think she was in line with the admin or out of it?

Remember, she supported JCPOA, Assad, didn't want to do anything with Maduro or Chavez…blamed Trump 1 for trying to start a war with Iran.

I give it six months and she'll be on Shawn Ryan talking about how Bibi led Trump astray.

---

Maybe she dislikes war, the same as Trump.

what is your point?

Why would anyone have a problem with a cabinet member or any other advisor to the administration giving the president honest feedback? Do you sincerely believe the best way forward for our country is an administration full of sycophants who will never disagree with the president? Seems a little too Baghdad Bob for me.

There you go! I finally agree with one of your posts.

Quote:

---

Why would anyone have a problem with a cabinet member or any other advisor to the administration giving the president honest feedback?

---

No one has suggested they'd have a problem with this.

Quote:

---

Do you sincerely believe the best way forward for our country is an administration full of sycophants who will never disagree with the president?

---

No one has remotely indicated they believe this.


Try again.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Why would anyone have a problem with a cabinet member or any other advisor to the administration giving the president honest feedback?

---

No one has suggested they'd have a problem with this.

Quote:

---

Do you sincerely believe the best way forward for our country is an administration full of sycophants who will never disagree with the president?

---

No one has remotely indicated they believe this.


Try again.

---

Well, there does seem to be quite a bit of anger on this forum directed at anyone within the administration that disagrees with the president in any way. That's pretty obvious.

In January, as Trump's national-security team made final preparations for the operation to snatch Venezuelan strongman Nicols Maduro, Gabbard posted social-media photos of herself on a beach in Hawaii, where she grew up, ignorant of the operation's details. "My heart is filled with gratitude, aloha, and peace," she said in an Instagram post.

Gabbard, a combat veteran who had been an outspoken critic of past foreign interventions, had been excluded by White House officials from Venezuela planning since last summer, the Journal reported. Before becoming DNI, Gabbard was critical of any potential U.S. intervention in the Latin American country, saying in 2019 that "the United States needs to stay out of Venezuela."

Gabbard and Trump disagreed on assessments over Iran and whether it was building a nuclear weapon.

In March 2025, Gabbard said the U.S. intelligence community assessed that Iran wasn't building a nuclear bomb and that its supreme leader hadn't authorized the restarting of a nuclear-weapons program that had been dormant since 2003. Three months later, Trump publicly rejected Gabbard's assessment. "I don't care what she said," Trump told reporters, adding that he thought Iran was "very close" to having a nuclear weapon.

In March this year, after the start of the U.S. war with Iran, Gabbard said in a written statement to a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, that "there has been no efforts" by Iran to reconstitute its nuclear-enrichment program since attacks last June on three nuclear sites. She didn't read that part of her remarks aloud during a hearing, saying reading the entire statement would take too much time.

Some 10 days later, Trump said of Gabbard: "She's a little bit different in her thought process than me, but that doesn't make somebody not available to serve."

Key Moments in Tulsi Gabbard's Difficult Tenure as Director of National Intelligence - WSJ

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Why would anyone have a problem with a cabinet member or any other advisor to the administration giving the president honest feedback?

---

No one has suggested they'd have a problem with this.

Quote:

---

Do you sincerely believe the best way forward for our country is an administration full of sycophants who will never disagree with the president?

---

No one has remotely indicated they believe this.


Try again.

---

Well, there does seem to be quite a bit of anger on this forum directed at anyone within the administration that disagrees with the president in any way. That's pretty obvious.

---

No one is angered by disagreement. What gets to people is disloyalty and undermining of the person they serve.

With Tulsi, she does appear to have disagreed with Trump but her hesitancies for foreign intervention were well known to Trump BEFORE he appointed her.

My employees are fine to disagree with me. But once I have set the directive I expect absolute loyalty, particularly when dealing outside of my organization. That's how it should be.

John Bolton is no Tulsi Gabbard and she is no John Bolton. If there has been the issues people want to see, this would have occurred sooner and in a different manner.

oh no said:

---

Well, anonymous sources told WaPo that Tulsi and the WH were at odds re: Iran.

Anonymous sources told CNN the same thing and there's no way WaPo and CNN have the same source at the WH so this is corroborating information.

On top of that, anonymous sources told Reuters today that cancer isn't the real reason she resigned. She was forced to resign due differences re: Iran. So you have to believe it. It's corroborated. Anonymously.

---

Say that again with a straight face.

For all we know, they both made it up. Or they both could have extrapolated differences in minute strategy (i.e. do we bomb on Tuesday or Wednesday) and turned it into a full fledged war.

Anyone who has ever made decisions at a high level KNOWS all this stuff is just BS. You NEVER have a room of 8 (or however many) smart, opinionated people that sit on their hands and nod their head in total agreement in meetings that cover tough issues. I've never been in a White House meeting, but I've been in tough meetings in organizations and getting consensus initially is usually impossible. But when we come up with something and everyone gets behind it and puts it into action, it works fine. At the first meeting, knowing nothing else, you'd assume everyone would resign if they don't get their way -- and that almost NEVER happens.

These news sources, to the extent they're actually doing supposedly honest reporting, are talking about disagreements at my hypothetical "first" meeting and ignoring everything else. But they don't tell their readers that.