'It's subjective!' MAGA rep whines over meaning of 'imminent' when grilled on Iran war

Source: Raw Story · Bias: Far Left

Summary

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) refused to acknowledge that there was not an "imminent" nuclear threat before President Donald Trump struck Iran by insisting that the word was too "subjective" to debate.During a Thursday interview on CNN, host Boris Sanchez noted that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had deflected a question about an imminent Iranian nuclear threat by arguing that only the president could define what "imminent" means."I'd say it's a persistent threat," Crenshaw dodged. "I mean, everyone's really getting hung up on the word imminent. And let's be clear about the word imminent. It's a subjective word.""Everyone's getting hung up on this, and I'm not sure why," he complained. "I don't view this conflict with Iran as just a rash decision by the president. I view it as something that was much more inevitable."Sanchez pointed out why Crenshaw, as a member of Congress, should be concerned with the definition of "imminent.""I guess, Congressman, part of the concern is that the president is only supposed to act unilaterally without input from Congress if there's going to be an imminent strike on Americans," the CNN host observed. "In other words, if there is an immediate danger to American lives, that's different than saying that Iran has a persistent threat or eventually may have the capacity to harm Americans on the mainland, no?""I don't think it's different at all," Crenshaw disagreed. "I think you phrased the same thing in two different ways.""What is imminent is the idea that you might have another North Korea," he added. "You're at a point in history where you either decide that you're not going to have another North Korea or you are. And right now, the only way to prevent that, the second North Korea, a madman with a bomb, is to use conventional means."U.S. law defines "imminent threat" as "the imminence of any natural, technological, or other occurrence which, in determination of a Federal Agency Head, because of its size or intent, seriously degrades or threatens the national security of the United States such that an emergency action would be impeded if the Federal Agency were to concurrently meet its historic preservation responsibilities under section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended."

Related Coverage

Daily Analysis

Read the full Parallax Pulse for March 19, 2026 — an AI-powered analysis of how Left and Right media covered the biggest stories this day.

More Headlines From March 19, 2026

arallaxNews.io
'It's subjective!' MAGA rep whines over meaning of 'imminent' when grilled on Iran war
Raw Story

'It's subjective!' MAGA rep whines over meaning of 'imminent' when grilled on Iran war

Far Left

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) refused to acknowledge that there was not an "imminent" nuclear threat before President Donald Trump struck Iran by insisting that the word was too "subjective" to debate.During a Thursday interview on CNN, host Boris Sanchez noted that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had deflected a question about an imminent Iranian nuclear threat by arguing that only the president could define what "imminent" means."I'd say it's a persistent threat," Crenshaw dodged. "I mean, everyone's really getting hung up on the word imminent. And let's be clear about the word imminent. It's a subjective word.""Everyone's getting hung up on this, and I'm not sure why," he complained. "I don't view this conflict with Iran as just a rash decision by the president. I view it as something that was much more inevitable."Sanchez pointed out why Crenshaw, as a member of Congress, should be concerned with the definition of "imminent.""I guess, Congressman, part of the concern is that the president is only supposed to act unilaterally without input from Congress if there's going to be an imminent strike on Americans," the CNN host observed. "In other words, if there is an immediate danger to American lives, that's different than saying that Iran has a persistent threat or eventually may have the capacity to harm Americans on the mainland, no?""I don't think it's different at all," Crenshaw disagreed. "I think you phrased the same thing in two different ways.""What is imminent is the idea that you might have another North Korea," he added. "You're at a point in history where you either decide that you're not going to have another North Korea or you are. And right now, the only way to prevent that, the second North Korea, a madman with a bomb, is to use conventional means."U.S. law defines "imminent threat" as "the imminence of any natural, technological, or other occurrence which, in determination of a Federal Agency Head, because of its size or intent, seriously degrades or threatens the national security of the United States such that an emergency action would be impeded if the Federal Agency were to concurrently meet its historic preservation responsibilities under section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended."

Read Full Story at Source