President Donald Trump has set off a fresh media firestorm with new demands targeting CNN reporter Natasha Bertrand, accusing her of undermining national security and calling for her immediate dismissal.
According to the Daily Mail, Trump lashed out over Bertrand’s reporting on a leaked preliminary U.S. intelligence assessment that contradicted his claim that a recent American airstrike on Iran had caused “total obliteration.” He insisted Bertrand should be fired and claimed her reporting disrespected U.S. military personnel.
The intelligence, reportedly from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), suggested that the strike had only temporarily delayed Iran’s nuclear development by a few months. This assessment clashed with the administration's triumphant statements and triggered a wave of condemnation from Trump and his allies, who accused Bertrand and CNN of spreading false information and endangering the morale of U.S. forces.
Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, where he accused Bertrand of engaging in "fake news" and declared that she should be "thrown out like a dog." He stated, “She should be IMMEDIATELY reprimanded,” claiming her story was meant to tarnish the success of the U.S. military mission and “destroy our Patriot Pilots.”
In the same post, Trump cast suspicion on whether CNN and The New York Times would issue apologies or fire their reporters for covering the leak, even though, he said, “the damage was done.” He argued that the strike had been a “perfect mission” and should not have been undermined by what he described as a low-confidence and politically motivated leak.
CNN stood behind Bertrand, stating that her reporting was consistent with the initial assessment from U.S. intelligence sources. The network emphasized that presenting preliminary findings does not equate to discrediting the military or their actions.
Several prominent journalists responded to Trump’s attack, defending Bertrand and calling out what they viewed as dangerous rhetoric. CNN anchor Pamela Brown directly rebuked the administration’s narrative, stating that it was entirely possible to celebrate military execution while also recognizing the limitations of its strategic impact.
Jake Tapper, another CNN figure, described Trump’s remarks as “ugly,” adding that they signaled an effort to discredit factual journalism. He emphasized that media scrutiny has always been an essential component in holding governments accountable, especially in times of war or international conflict.
Brown noted that the reporting was based on a classified intelligence assessment that had been characterized internally as “low-confidence,” but nonetheless valuable to understanding the scope and result of the airstrike. Bertrand’s defenders maintained that these types of findings should not be hidden from the public just because they complicate the president’s narrative.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized Bertrand sharply, saying she “should be ashamed of herself” for circulating what the administration views as misleading information. Leavitt cited Bertrand’s past coverage of topics like Hunter Biden’s laptop and COVID-19 origins as evidence of a supposed pattern of dishonesty.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed the administration’s sentiments, accusing the press of prioritizing political agendas over patriotism. He defended the pilots and called the mission a success, despite what he described as an orchestrated media effort to suggest otherwise.
Fox News commentator Charlie Hurt took the outrage further, stating that the leak amounted to “treason” and that the leaker should face the death penalty. Although he questioned Bertrand’s decision to run the story, he admitted she may have believed the information was important to public understanding.
Trump’s attacks have revived concerns about press freedom under his administration, where clashes with the media have been frequent and often personal. Critics argue that the latest controversy fits into a broader pattern of hostility toward journalists who report information that challenges the president’s narrative.
The decision to publish preliminary intelligence, especially one labeled “low-confidence,” has been defended by news organizations as necessary and responsible journalism. Editors and anchors emphasized that they provided necessary context and noted that the assessment was one of several tools in evaluating the airstrike’s impact.
Still, Trump and his supporters maintain that the leak and its coverage compromised national morale and gave adversaries reason to downplay the strike’s effectiveness. Legal threats have reportedly been considered, with Trump calling for potential lawsuits against media outlets involved in publicizing the assessment.
