Vice President JD Vance has stepped into the spotlight to refute claims that he and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard were sidelined in planning for actions concerning Venezuela.
Reports from Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal on Thursday suggested that Vance and Gabbard were excluded from strategic discussions about Venezuela, with Bloomberg citing unnamed sources claiming Gabbard’s past criticism of U.S. foreign interventions played a role. White House officials, however, have countered these narratives, affirming that both Vance and Gabbard remain integral to President Trump’s advisory team and are actively engaged in their duties.
The issue has sparked debate over the internal dynamics of the administration and whether key figures are truly in the loop on critical foreign policy matters. Let’s unpack this with a clear-eyed look at what’s being said versus what’s being done.
Vance didn’t mince words on Thursday, directly addressing the swirling rumors about his and Gabbard’s supposed exclusion. "I've heard a couple of things. One that I was kept out of the planning for the Venezuela operation. That's false," he stated, adding that claims about Gabbard being sidelined are "completely false" as well. If you’re going to throw mud, at least make sure it sticks—these denials are as firm as they come.
Gabbard, known for her long-standing reservations about aggressive U.S. involvement abroad, found herself at the center of Bloomberg’s report, which even quoted aides jesting that DNI means "do not invite." That’s a cute quip, but it’s hard to take seriously when White House insiders are singing a different tune. Snarky anonymous leaks don’t outweigh official pushback.
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung doubled down, emphasizing that "President Trump has full confidence in [Gabbard] and she’s doing a fantastic job." If the commander-in-chief trusts her, shouldn’t that settle the matter? Or are we just feeding the media’s hunger for drama over substance?
Administration officials have been quick to provide context, noting that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence supplied critical analytical support for the Venezuela mission. This isn’t a ceremonial role—Gabbard’s team is in the trenches, even if the media prefers a juicier exclusion story. It’s almost as if some outlets would rather invent rifts than report results.
Further, an official pointed out that Gabbard is a frequent presence at the White House, briefing President Trump routinely and visiting multiple times a week. If that’s being “locked out,” then most of Washington would kill for such access. Let’s not confuse skepticism of interventionist policies with being sidelined.
The Wall Street Journal’s follow-up, suggesting a distant relationship between Gabbard and Trump, was also shot down by administration sources. When officials are this consistent in their rebuttals, it’s worth asking why the press keeps pushing a fractured narrative. Could it be that division sells better than unity?
Gabbard’s history as a critic of hawkish foreign policy has clearly ruffled feathers, especially among those who favor a more assertive U.S. stance. But isn’t it healthy to have voices in the room questioning endless overseas entanglements? Her perspective might just be the guardrail we need against overreach.
Bloomberg’s reporting, which White House officials called an attempt to "sow division," feels like a jab at anyone who dares to challenge the interventionist status quo. If you’re not waving the flag for every military move, are you automatically suspect? That’s a dangerous precedent in any administration.
Cheung’s sharp rebuke of the media’s tactics hits the nail on the head—division is the name of the game for some outlets. When anonymous “people familiar with the matter” become the go-to source, it’s less about journalism and more about crafting a narrative. Readers deserve better than recycled gossip.
The real story here isn’t about who’s in or out of a meeting room—it’s about whether the administration can maintain trust while navigating complex foreign policy challenges like Venezuela. Vance and Gabbard’s involvement, as confirmed by multiple sources, suggests a team that’s more cohesive than the press would have us believe. That’s a reassuring signal amid global uncertainties.
Still, the media’s persistence in painting internal discord raises questions about their priorities. Are they reporting the news or auditioning for a soap opera script? A little less speculation and a little more substance would go a long way.
In the end, the facts speak louder than the rumors: Vance and Gabbard are in the game, Trump backs them, and the work on Venezuela continues. If the media wants a scandal, they’ll have to look elsewhere—perhaps to their own penchant for stirring the pot. For now, let’s keep the focus on policy, not palace intrigue.
