WASHINGTON, D.C. – Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard ignited intense debate in Washington after she released a collection of declassified files. Gabbard claims these documents reveal strong proof that former President Barack Obama and senior intelligence officials plotted to create the story of Russian intervention in the 2016 election.
According to her, this effort aimed to cast doubt on Donald Trump’s win and presidency. These claims sparked sharp arguments, with Democrats and mainstream outlets downplaying the release, while some legal analysts say top Obama-era officials could face serious legal trouble.
Gabbard’s Statement: Claims of a Planned Hoax
On July 19, 2025, Tulsi Gabbard, once a Democratic congresswoman who is now affiliated with Trump’s Republican circle, declassified over 100 documents. She argues these records show an intentional plan by the Obama administration to push an unfounded story about Russia swinging the 2016 election in Trump’s favour.
Speaking at the White House, Gabbard described the plot as an effort to overturn the voters’ choice. “Our findings today show there was a conspiracy at the highest levels in 2016,” she said, naming Obama, James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, and Andrew McCabe as key participants.
The released records, which include emails and memos, along with a long-hidden September 2020 House Intelligence Committee report, suggest Obama ordered his national security staff to publish a misleading intelligence assessment on January 6, 2017. This report claimed Moscow worked to help Trump.
Gabbard’s team points to other intelligence, gathered weeks before, which stated Russia lacked both the intent and means to hack U.S. voting systems. In one cited exchange, Clapper’s assistant emails intelligence chiefs after a December 9, 2016, National Security Council meeting, instructing them to draft a new assessment “at the President’s request,” outlining “methods Moscow used to influence the 2016 election.”
Gabbard claims Obama and his advisers knowingly relied on weak sources, such as the controversial Steele dossier, to build the collusion narrative. These claims were then leaked to reporters from major outlets such as The Washington Post, she says, even though U.S. agencies didn’t agree before the election that Russia had helped Trump. “This transcends party lines,” Gabbard told Fox News. “Confidence in our democracy is at stake.”
Journalists Analyze the Fallout: Taibbi, Kelly, O’Reilly Respond
After Gabbard released the documents, several well-known journalists pored over them and spoke out. Matt Taibbi, who gained attention for reporting on the Twitter Files, said on The Megyn Kelly Show that the December 2016 White House meeting appeared to be the key moment.
According to Taibbi, after that meeting with Obama, Clapper, Brennan, Rice and others, the intelligence community made a sharp turn in its view of Russian activities. He noted, using the 2020 House report as evidence, that the reassessment came after Obama’s “unusual” instructions, especially from Brennan.
Megyn Kelly, now a podcaster after her time with Fox News, called Gabbard’s move a potential major scandal. On her podcast, Kelly and Taibbi discussed how the Steele dossier, paid for by the Clinton campaign and filled with shaky claims, became part of the intelligence community’s official 2017 assessment.
Kelly highlighted that some intelligence insiders thought the dossier was more online gossip than hard fact, yet high-profile officials like Brennan, Comey, and McCabe pushed for it to be included.
Bill O’Reilly, a leading conservative commentator and 40-year news veteran, said on his show No Spin News that the declassified documents show a misuse of power by the Obama administration. O’Reilly argued Gabbard is exposing what Trump’s supporters suspected for years: that the Russia investigation was politically driven.
He praised Gabbard for her boldness and her journey from outsider Democrat to a close Trump ally, saying, “She is revealing what others in her position have not dared to.”
Democratic and Media Pushback
Democratic lawmakers and media outlets have rejected Gabbard’s accusations, calling them a ploy and based on misleading information. Congressman Jim Himes, the leading Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, dismissed the claims as “baseless” and accused Gabbard of recycling old conspiracy theories to distract from other issues, including the Trump team’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein files.
Senator Mark Warner, a top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, referenced a 2020 bipartisan Senate report which concluded Russia did try to influence the 2016 election. “If there was a conspiracy under Obama, we would have found it,” he said on X, formerly Twitter, labelling Gabbard’s actions as an effort to muddy the historical record and undermine public trust in the intelligence community.
Major news brands, including CNN and The Washington Post, have pushed back on Gabbard’s account, too. The Washington Post published an article arguing her reading of the 2017 intelligence assessment is wrong, since the assessment focused on Russian propaganda efforts, not vote hacking.
The article pointed to four investigations, including reports from Robert Mueller and the 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee, that backed the assessment’s main conclusions. CNN noted that Gabbard’s decision to declassify a redacted intelligence report, which Trump never released, could put sensitive information at risk, setting off warnings from former officials.
Obama’s spokesperson called the claims “ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,” and reminded the media that Obama ordered the Russia probe in 2016 to help protect U.S. voting systems. Some critics say Gabbard is trying to rebuild her reputation with Trump, who once questioned her commitment after disputes on Iran.
Legal Pressure on Obama-Era Officials
Since the documents became public, the Justice Department confirmed it has started a review. James Clapper, Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence, is reportedly working with lawyers to address the possible investigation. Clapper, who oversaw the 2017 intelligence assessment, denied any wrongdoing, calling the accusations “false and baseless” in a CNN interview.
Observers are watching John Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, who some legal analysts believe is at risk of prosecution. Lawyer Mike Davis told The Glenn Beck Program he thinks Gabbard’s evidence could justify charges against Brennan, Clapper, and others for misleading Congress. Davis said, “If they kept the coverup going after they left office, they can’t hide behind presidential immunity.”
The Justice Department is investigating Brennan and James Comey, the former FBI director, following a referral from current CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who criticized how the 2017 assessment was put together.
Comey remains a focus of attention, since the documents suggest he strongly pushed for the Steele dossier to be included in the 2017 report, even while knowing its reliability was questionable. According to Gabbard’s office, both Comey and McCabe admitted, in transcripts from House hearings, that there was no hard evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
Legal experts warn that any cases could be affected by the statute of limitations and recent Supreme Court rulings on presidential immunity.
The Justice Department has set up a task force to review Gabbard’s disclosures. This move may lead to grand jury appearances by Adam Schiff, Susan Rice, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, and possibly Obama. Schiff, a key figure during the House’s Russia probe, is accused of continuing the collusion story.
Susan Rice is named as a central attendee at the December 2016 meeting described in the documents. While officials are keeping details private, the formation of this group suggests rising stakes.
Wider Impact on U.S. Politics
Gabbard’s actions have reopened old arguments about the Russia probe, an issue that shaped Trump’s first term. Her supporters, including Trump, see her disclosures as solid proof that the investigation into his campaign was never genuine.
Trump has used social media to share images implying Obama and others should be jailed, and called the documents “rock-solid evidence” of major wrongdoing.
On the other side, critics warn that releasing such material could reveal sensitive sources or methods, risking national security. Democrats argue this renewed focus on 2016 takes away from ongoing issues, like the Epstein case or pressing foreign affairs.
“The Trump administration seems willing to release anything except the Epstein files,” Senator Warner joked.
Gabbard herself has become a symbol of change, shifting from a Democratic presidential hopeful to a top Trump appointee. Her history, including previous comments sympathetic to some Russian views, made her nomination as Director of National Intelligence controversial. Yet Trump has praised her recent work, describing her as a standout at a recent Republican gathering.
Conclusion
Tulsi Gabbard’s document release has returned the Russia collusion story to centre stage. Her supporters, including well-known journalists, regard the documents as clear proof of long-suspected misconduct at the highest levels of government.
Meanwhile, Democrats and most media voices reject the claims as a political distortion of well-established facts. What happens next in the legal arena is still unclear, but the Justice Department’s new task force could shape how history remembers the Obama administration.
Washington now faces a high-stakes fight over facts, accountability, and trust in the country’s institutions.
