President Donald Trump was prepared to dismiss Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard over her handling of the Iran conflict, until longtime adviser Roger Stone made a phone call that changed his mind, the Daily Mail reported.
The episode, which unfolded over the course of recent weeks, offers a window into the internal pressures facing Trump's national security team as the administration navigates its confrontation with Iran. It also raises questions about who holds influence inside the West Wing, and how far that influence extends when the president's patience runs thin.
The Daily Mail reported that Trump had grown increasingly frustrated with Gabbard on two fronts: her perceived lack of enthusiasm for his Iran policy during congressional testimony on Capitol Hill, and her refusal to condemn her own deputy, Joe Kent, during that same testimony. Kent stepped down last month after publicly accusing Israel of misleading the president about the need to invade Iran.
The situation escalated beyond private grumbling. The Daily Mail reported that Trump polled Cabinet members on whether he should fire Gabbard, a striking step that signals the president was seriously weighing her removal, not merely venting. He also reportedly scolded her in a closed-door meeting and questioned her loyalty.
By last week, Trump sounded ready to pull the trigger. That is when Stone, described as a friend and close political adviser to Trump since 1979, stepped in.
Stone, 73, called Trump directly and laid out four arguments against dismissing Gabbard. He warned that firing her would trigger a damaging media frenzy. He argued she could become a martyr among portions of Trump's own base. He said the move could actually boost her credibility with MAGA dissenters. And he told Trump it would complicate Vice President JD Vance's path in early 2028 primary states like New Hampshire and South Carolina, suggesting Stone framed the decision not just as a management question but as a political one with long-term consequences.
Stone went further, reportedly arguing that Gabbard could be positioned as a serious GOP presidential contender within a year, an outcome that firing her would only accelerate, not prevent.
A source close to Trump told the Daily Mail plainly: "Roger sealed the deal. He saved Tulsi."
On Thursday, Stone confirmed on X that he had intervened on Gabbard's behalf.
"Fortunately, I acted in time."
Stone declined to comment further when reached by the Daily Mail.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt offered a statement that did not address Stone's reported intervention at all. Instead, she framed Gabbard's standing in the administration as solid.
"President Trump believes Tulsi Gabbard is doing an excellent job on behalf of the administration. She is a key member of his national security team."
That statement tracks with Trump's own prior public comments shutting down rumors that Gabbard was on her way out. The White House has repeatedly pushed back on reports of internal friction around the DNI post.
Gabbard's spokesperson also issued a statement, saying she "remains committed to fulfilling the responsibilities the President placed in her to protect the safety, security and freedom of the American people. She will continue to work tirelessly on behalf of President Trump's agenda."
Neither statement acknowledged the reported Cabinet poll, the closed-door scolding, or the fact that an outside adviser apparently had to talk the president out of making a personnel change at the top of the intelligence community.
The friction between Trump and Gabbard did not begin in a vacuum. It intensified after Joe Kent, Gabbard's deputy and a former counter-terror chief, stepped down last month. Kent's departure followed his accusation that Israel had misled the president about the necessity of invading Iran, a claim that put him at odds with the administration's posture.
Gabbard's refusal to condemn Kent during her congressional testimony appears to have compounded Trump's frustration. For a president who prizes loyalty and message discipline, a DNI who would not publicly distance herself from a departing subordinate's inflammatory claim was a problem.
The Iran dimension is significant. Trump has taken an aggressive stance toward Tehran, including issuing a blunt ultimatum over the Strait of Hormuz. Axios reported that Trump grew frustrated specifically over Gabbard's lack of enthusiasm for his Iran war during her testimony, a characterization that, if accurate, placed the DNI out of step with the commander-in-chief on a live military question.
That kind of daylight between a president and his intelligence chief is not a small thing. The DNI role exists to synthesize and present intelligence to the president, not to freelance on policy. But Gabbard's background as a combat veteran and former Democratic congresswoman who built her brand on skepticism of foreign intervention makes the tension almost structural. The qualities that made her appealing to a certain wing of Trump's coalition are the same ones that create friction when the administration moves toward military action.
Roger Stone's intervention is the most striking detail in this episode, not because he has influence, which has been well documented over decades, but because of what it reveals about the decision-making process around a senior national security appointment.
Stone is not a government official. He holds no security clearance. He is a political strategist and self-described "dirty trickster" who has advised Trump since 1979. His arguments against firing Gabbard were, by the Daily Mail's account, entirely political: media fallout, base dynamics, martyr risk, and Vance's 2028 positioning.
None of the four reasons reportedly involved intelligence community performance, national security outcomes, or Gabbard's actual job. That framing may have been effective, Stone himself said he "acted in time", but it also means the decision to keep the nation's top intelligence official was reportedly made on political grounds, not operational ones.
This is not the first time reports have surfaced about Trump weighing Gabbard's replacement over the Iran intelligence dispute. The pattern of tension, public denial, and behind-the-scenes maneuvering has become familiar.
The Gabbard episode fits a broader pattern of scrutiny and friction among Trump's senior appointees. Other Cabinet members have faced questions over conduct and messaging in recent weeks, and the administration has dealt with a series of high-profile personnel decisions that have tested the White House's ability to project stability.
The White House has consistently maintained that Trump has full confidence in Gabbard. Leavitt's statement reinforced that line. But the gap between the official message and the reported reality, a president polling his Cabinet on whether to fire someone, scolding her behind closed doors, and only relenting after a phone call from an outside adviser, is wide enough to notice.
Several questions remain unanswered. Which Cabinet members did Trump poll? What exactly did Gabbard say, or not say, during her testimony that set him off? And what happens the next time Gabbard's instincts on foreign intervention diverge from the president's?
For now, Gabbard keeps her job. The White House says the president has full confidence in her. Roger Stone says he saved her. And the intelligence community's top official owes her continued tenure not to her performance review, but to a political strategist's warning about the 2028 primary calendar.
That ought to tell you everything about how Washington actually works, and how little of it has anything to do with keeping the country safe.
