Gabbard, who was sworn in as Director of National Intelligence on Feb. 11, 2025, said in a letter to Warner and other lawmakers that she visited the site briefly at Trump’s request. According to her account, she observed a portion of the search, acknowledged the agents for their professionalism, and later met them at the FBI’s Atlanta Field Office.
The Call With Trump
During that field-office meeting, Gabbard placed a speakerphone call to Trump. Several media outlets reported that the former president asked the squad supervisor questions about the operation, though Gabbard’s letter contends neither she nor Trump issued instructions or sought sensitive details. She maintained that her office’s general counsel reviewed her conduct and concluded it fell within her statutory authority.
Warner nonetheless characterized the episode as unusual. He argued that direct interaction between a political figure who remains influential within his party and agents engaged in an ongoing investigation could raise concerns about undue influence or the appearance of favoritism. The senator also expressed worry that the call might blur lines between political advocacy and the intelligence community’s obligation to remain nonpartisan.
Trump’s Remarks on “Taking Over” Elections
Warner’s request for testimony comes as Trump intensifies rhetoric about state-run election systems. In a podcast interview released Monday with former deputy FBI director Dan Bongino, the former president suggested Republicans should “take over” or “nationalize” election administration, repeating unsubstantiated claims that noncitizens are being transported to the United States to vote illegally. He cited the Georgia probe as evidence of purported systemic problems and predicted that “interesting” developments would emerge once authorities examine the seized ballots.
Under the U.S. Constitution, states hold primary responsibility for conducting elections, while federal oversight is limited. Trump’s call for nationalization would therefore mark a significant departure from longstanding practice. Election-security experts, including those at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, have repeatedly stated that widespread fraud in federal elections is extremely rare and that the decentralized state-based system provides resilience against large-scale manipulation.
Gabbard’s Stated Legal Authority
Gabbard’s letter pointed to provisions in federal law granting the Director of National Intelligence broad responsibility for coordinating intelligence related to election security, counterintelligence, foreign influence, and cybersecurity. She argued that this mandate justifies her presence at operations that might reveal threats originating abroad or attempts to compromise election infrastructure. The DNI oversees 18 agencies within the intelligence community and regularly briefs Congress on foreign efforts to influence U.S. democratic processes.
Despite those statutory powers, Warner contends that appearing at a local search focused on administrative records, rather than foreign actors, may exceed the typical role of the DNI. He intends to ask Gabbard to clarify how her office assessed the need for on-site observation, what legal advice she received beforehand, and whether she coordinated with the Department of Justice or FBI headquarters.
Senate Committee’s Next Steps
If Gabbard agrees to appear voluntarily, the hearing is likely to address several topics: the timeline of her communications with Trump regarding the search; any discussions she had with the White House Counsel’s Office; and measures taken to prevent the disclosure of investigative details to political figures. Warner said he also wants Gabbard to outline her broader strategy for safeguarding the 2024 midterm elections against both foreign and domestic interference.
Should she decline, the Intelligence Committee could vote to subpoena her. Although Democrats control only 49 seats, panel rules allow the vice chair to initiate a subpoena with the support of a bipartisan majority on the committee.
Reaction From Republicans and Intelligence Officials
Republican leaders have not publicly responded to Warner’s request. Some GOP lawmakers have defended Trump’s recent comments on nationalizing elections as an expression of frustration with state officials whom he accuses of mismanaging voting procedures. Others have remained silent, wary of renewing intraparty divisions over the 2020 contest.
Former intelligence officials interviewed by national outlets said it is unusual for a DNI to become directly involved in a local law-enforcement action unrelated to foreign intelligence. They noted, however, that statutes leave room for interpretation when an investigation touches on election integrity.
Context for the 2024 Election Cycle
The exchange underscores the heightened scrutiny surrounding the administration of the upcoming midterm elections. Trump continues to dispute the 2020 results despite numerous court decisions upholding them. Meanwhile, Congress has struggled to enact bipartisan election-security legislation, and state legislatures have advanced a variety of voting-access and voter-ID measures. Observers expect legal challenges to intensify as the campaign season progresses.
Warner has not set a date for the proposed hearing. Gabbard’s office said it is reviewing the senator’s request and will respond through appropriate channels.
Crédito da imagem: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP / Getty Images
