TruthOrFake Logo
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: Four top national security officials to brief lawmakers on intelligence leaks.

Fact Check: Four top national security officials to brief lawmakers on intelligence leaks.

Published June 26, 2025
ByFactChecker 1.1 avatarFactChecker 1.1
✓
VERDICT
True

# Fact Check: Four Top National Security Officials to Brief Lawmakers on Intelligence Leaks ## What We Know Recent reports indicate that the White Ho...

Fact Check: Four Top National Security Officials to Brief Lawmakers on Intelligence Leaks

What We Know

Recent reports indicate that the White House plans to send four top national security officials to brief lawmakers regarding intelligence leaks related to U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. This briefing is set against a backdrop of political tension and conflicting assessments of the effectiveness of these airstrikes. The officials expected to attend include Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and General Dan Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Notably absent will be Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who has been sidelined in recent discussions about Iran's nuclear capabilities (Washington Post, Axios).

The briefing is a response to leaks that have undermined President Trump's claims that the airstrikes completely destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities. Initial intelligence assessments, reported by CNN, indicated that while the strikes significantly damaged the program, they did not eliminate it entirely (New York Times). This discrepancy has led to calls from lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, for the administration to provide Congress with accurate and timely information (Washington Post).

Analysis

The claim that four top national security officials will brief lawmakers is supported by multiple credible sources, including major news outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times. These sources detail the political context surrounding the briefing, including the administration's decision to limit classified information sharing with Congress, which has drawn criticism from both Democratic and some Republican lawmakers.

The reliability of the sources is high, as they are established news organizations known for their investigative journalism and fact-checking standards. The information provided is consistent across these reports, reinforcing the credibility of the claim. The absence of Tulsi Gabbard from the briefing is particularly noteworthy, as it highlights internal divisions within the administration regarding the narrative on Iran's nuclear capabilities (Axios).

However, it is essential to note that the political motivations behind the briefing and the administration's handling of intelligence could introduce bias. The framing of the airstrikes' effectiveness has been a contentious issue, with the administration attempting to portray a narrative of success despite conflicting intelligence assessments (New York Times).

Conclusion

The claim that four top national security officials will brief lawmakers on intelligence leaks is True. The evidence from multiple credible sources confirms that this briefing is scheduled and involves significant figures in the U.S. national security apparatus. The context surrounding the briefing, including the political implications and the administration's controversial stance on intelligence sharing, further substantiates the claim.

Sources

  1. White House to limit intelligence sharing, skip Gabbard at Senate Iran ...
  2. Chairman Crawford Announces Open Full Committee Hearing on 2025 Annual ...
  3. U.S. Spy Chiefs Give New Assessments on Damage at Iran ...
  4. Four lingering questions about Trump officials' Signal chat
  5. Trump reiterates claims about Iran's nuclear program that contradict ...
  6. Lawmakers, Including Some Republicans, Say Sharing of ...
  7. Trump intel officials testify on threat from drug cartels as ...
  8. Donald Trump moves to limit classified info sharing with Congress after ...

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: RECYCLING CLING GLASS BOTTLES BOTTLESAVESE SAVES SAVESENOUGH ENERGYTO ENERGYTOPOWERA POWERA NORMAL LIGHT BULB FOR FOUR HOURS.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: RECYCLING CLING GLASS BOTTLES BOTTLESAVESE SAVES SAVESENOUGH ENERGYTO ENERGYTOPOWERA POWERA NORMAL LIGHT BULB FOR FOUR HOURS.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: RECYCLING CLING GLASS BOTTLES BOTTLESAVESE SAVES SAVESENOUGH ENERGYTO ENERGYTOPOWERA POWERA NORMAL LIGHT BULB FOR FOUR HOURS.

Jul 21, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Texas congressional maps have unconstitutional racial gerrymanders in four districts.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Texas congressional maps have unconstitutional racial gerrymanders in four districts.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Texas congressional maps have unconstitutional racial gerrymanders in four districts.

Jul 13, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The Houthis targeted more than 100 merchant vessels, sinking two and killing four sailors.
True

Fact Check: The Houthis targeted more than 100 merchant vessels, sinking two and killing four sailors.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The Houthis targeted more than 100 merchant vessels, sinking two and killing four sailors.

Jul 7, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
True

Fact Check: The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Jul 3, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Presidential elections in the U.S. occur every four years.
True

Fact Check: Presidential elections in the U.S. occur every four years.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Presidential elections in the U.S. occur every four years.

Jul 3, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks
Fact Check: Four top national security officials to brief lawmakers on intelligence leaks. | TruthOrFake Blog