Former CIA Director John Brennan told a cable panel he trusted Iran over President Trump amid conflicting accounts about U.S.-Iran communication, sparking sharp reactions and follow-up reporting that complicated the narrative.

On a recent MSNBC panel, John Brennan said he believed Iran over the president when the two accounts about talks diverged. The exchange took place during a discussion on whether Washington and Tehran were actually in contact, and it raised immediate eyebrows because Brennan is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Brennan’s public siding with a regime that has chanted “Death to America” for decades surprised many commentators. President Trump had said there were “very good and productive conversations,” while Iran’s parliamentary speaker denied negotiations, producing a clear clash of official statements.

“Well, I tend to believe Iran more than I do Donald Trump, because he could not acknowledge the truth even when it is — he’s slapped in the face with it repeatedly.”

The panel atmosphere pushed the point further. Michael Steele offered a blunt characterization of the president’s style.

“I think Donald Trump is doing what Donald Trump always does, and that is talking out of his behind.”

Symone Sanders-Townsend, who noted that the Iranian regime lies, then voiced confusion aloud: “I’m confused! What is going on? Help me, calm me down.” Brennan took that cue and described the president as “flailing” and attempting to escape what he called a “debacle” of his own making.

He also dismissed the president’s account as inaccurate, saying, “I don’t think anything close to the truth is in that statement.” A day later, reporting confirmed there had been outreach between the U.S. and Iran, undercutting the panel’s certainty and complicating the initial impression Brennan left on viewers.

Brennan’s standing was another point of contention. He previously signed a letter questioning the authenticity of the Hunter Biden laptop story, a move that was later shown to be incorrect, and he is reportedly under FBI investigation for actions tied to the Trump-Russia probe.

His security clearance was revoked by President Trump in January 2025, a fact critics pointed to when weighing Brennan’s recent comments. Those details were cited by administration allies as context for why his public trust in Tehran over Washington felt particularly troubling to conservative viewers.

“Believing a terrorist regime that has chanted ‘Death to America’ for decades over the United States of America is shameful and Trump Derangement Syndrome at work.”

Policy watchers noted that the larger story was less about who uttered the louder line and more about how the timeline of events played out. Trump paused planned strikes and signaled diplomatic channels were active, while Iranian officials framed some of the exchanges as “psychological warfare,” language suggesting maneuvering rather than complete silence.

The next day’s reporting that acknowledged some level of outreach between Washington and Tehran undercut the certainty displayed on the panel. For critics, the sequence reinforced a broader complaint: former officials who opposed the administration’s agenda sometimes default to framing every move as deceit rather than a possible diplomatic tactic.

That pattern, as argued by supporters of the president, turns public debate into theater. Rather than advancing a focused critique of negotiating strategy or presenting a measured alternative, some segments on cable news leaned toward dramatic denunciation instead of sober analysis.

Whatever one’s view of the president, the episode exposed a trust gap between former intelligence officials and the current administration, then complicated that gap when subsequent reporting verified the outreach Trump described. The result was a broadcast that left partisans claiming vindication and opponents accusing the panel of performance over prudence.