JB Pritzker flexes his political muscle: From the Politics Desk

Welcome to From the Politics Desk, a daily newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team’s latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail.

In today’s edition, Natasha Korecki explores what last night’s Illinois primaries could mean for Gov. JB Pritzker’s political future. Plus, Andrea Mitchell recaps the key moments from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's day on Capitol Hill.

Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday here.

— Adam Wollner

Illinois results solidify JB Pritzker's 'powerhouse' role — and set up a White House run

By Natasha Korecki

Officially, Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker is seeking a third term in Illinois, clinching his own nomination unopposed as he prepares to face off against Republican Darren Bailey.

But one of the dominant narratives coming out last night’s primaries in Illinois was how it would all reflect on Pritzker’s eventual pursuit of the White House.

Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton’s Senate primary victory over the well-financed Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, who had outspent Stratton and aired more TV ads for far longer, has now only underscored Pritzker’s role as power player in the state. For Pritzker, it was vital that Stratton win the race — and not just because he endorsed her. While she touted a new, progressive platform in her Senate campaign, she also ran on the Pritzker-Stratton record.

In the months leading up to the primary, Krishnamoorthi was framed as the front-runner, both in polling and in fundraising. Questions swirled about whether Pritzker truly had the strategic organization, clout and popularity to push Stratton over the finish line.

“It was a big test for him last night. If he didn’t succeed it would have been a speed bump onto his probable entry into the race for president. Now people won’t question his staying power,” said Jim Durkin, the former Republican leader of the Illinois House.

“There should be no question in anybody’s mind,” Durkin continued, “that JB Pritzker is the undisputed powerhouse in Illinois.”

Pritzker, a billionaire, poured at least $5 million into a super PAC backing Stratton. The group, Illinois Future PAC, spent $14.8 million on ads. While a sizable sum, it still lagged Krishnamoorthi’s spending.

A person involved in Stratton’s election effort said it was Pritzker who recognized that the Democratic electorate wanted to hear from future leaders who were forcefully willing to stand up to President Donald Trump.

“Democratic primary voters are in a very different spot than pundits and people assume. We knew from the very beginning, I think JB was one of the first to recognize this,” the person involved in Stratton’s re-election effort said. “Fighting Trump and standing up for your people was going to be the winning message. … That’s what ultimately set Juliana apart. We were vastly outspent. It wasn’t JB’s money that won her this race.”

Read more from Natasha →

And catch up on last night’s Democratic House primaries in Illinois here →

Tulsi Gabbard in the hot seat

Analysis by Andrea Mitchell

As a member of the Cabinet in charge of all U.S. intelligence, overseeing 17 separate agencies, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard seemed determined today to give up power, rather than assert it.

Testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee for the first time in a year, she ducked responsibility for President Donald Trump’s statements that the U.S. went to war because of Iran’s imminent threat from its nuclear program.

Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., asked: “Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an ‘imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?’ Yes or no?” Gabbard answered: “Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president.”

In response, Ossoff said, “It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States.” He went on to accuse her of “evading the question because a candid response would contradict a statement from the White House.”

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the vice chair of the intelligence committee, said he was concerned that in her prepared testimony, she had written that U.S. bombings last June had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and that Tehran had made no efforts to rebuild it. But when she read her opening statement at the hearing, she had left that part out.

Warner asked: “Was that because the president said there was an imminent threat (of) two weeks?” Gabbard replied: “No, sir, I recognized that the time was running long.”

She also refused to divulge whether she had briefed the president that if he started the war, the likely result would be that Iran would strike adjacent Gulf nations and close the Strait of Hormuz — major actions that are currently rattling Iran’s neighbors and causing oil prices to surge.

Members of the committee should not have been surprised. On the eve of her appearance, Gabbard previewed her stance, issuing a stunningly hands-off post on social media laying off all responsibility on Trump for the intelligence assessment of Iran’s threat.

Gabbard wrote: “As our Commander in Chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat. … After carefully reviewing all the information before him, President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat and he took action based on that conclusion.”

In his video message announcing the start of the war on Feb. 28, Trump said Iran was attempting to rebuild their nuclear program, describing the threat as “imminent.” After the war started, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff told Fox News that Iran could have enough enriched weapons-grade uranium within a week to 10 days. And in his State of the Union days before the war began, Trump warned that Iran was working to build long range missiles that will “soon” reach the U.S.

By contrast, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who reports to Gabbard, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iran was years away from developing missiles capable of hitting the U.S. He said Iran was “gaining experience” to developing intermediate-range missiles that could reach Europe and U.S. troops in the region, but neither he nor Gabbard included Iran in the handful of nations — Russia, China and North Korea — whose missiles could reach the U.S. Gabbard said Iran “could” develop technology to begin to develop a long-range missile before 2035 — not “soon” as Trump had said.

Gabbard’s shaky performance at the hearing again raised questions about her job security. Yesterday, a top deputy, National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent, resigned to protest the president’s decision to launch the war against Iran. It was the first public schism over the war among top Trump officials, though NBC News has reported that Vice President JD Vance expressed reservations about attacking Iran.

More on the Iran war:

Rebuffed by allies, Trump now says U.S. doesn’t need help defending the Strait of Hormuz, by Peter Nicholas, Andrea Mitchell, Dan De Luce and Abigail Williams

Republican leaders reject demands for public hearings on Trump’s war with Iran, by Scott Wong, Brennan Leach and Frank Thorp V

U.S. embassies ordered to ‘immediately’ review security as attacks spread, by Abigail Williams and Raquel Coronell Uribe

Follow live updates →

That’s all From the Politics Desk for now. Today’s newsletter was compiled by Adam Wollner and Owen Auston-Babcock.

If you have feedback — likes or dislikes — email us at [email protected]

And if you’re a fan, please share with everyone and anyone. They can sign up here.