WASHINGTON, D.C. – The US Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, declassified more than 100 pages of U.S. intelligence documents on July 18, 2025, sparking intense debate across American politics.
These documents, according to Gabbard, show that former President Barack Obama and his key aides pushed a narrative of Russian interference in the 2016 election while ignoring their own intelligence agencies’ findings.
Gabbard described the actions outlined in the files as a “treasonous conspiracy” designed to discredit Donald Trump’s victory and disrupt his presidency. As the story gained traction, major media outlets appeared to minimize the impact or question the motives behind the DNI release, prompting discussion about media bias and the responsibility to report important news.
Inside the Declassified Files: Tracing the Events
A memo from Gabbard’s office outlines how members of the Obama administration worked together to promote the idea of Russian collusion, even though intelligence reports at the time suggested otherwise.
Documents show that, leading up to the 2016 election, agencies like the CIA and FBI believed Russia “probably [was] not trying…to influence the election by using cyber means.”
A President’s Daily Brief prepared in December 2016 by several agencies repeated that “Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent U.S. election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.”
After Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, however, the focus changed. On December 9, 2016, top officials met in the White House Situation Room. Attendees included Obama, DNI James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, and others.
According to the meeting record, they agreed to recommend sanctions on certain Russian intelligence personnel for their role in cyber activity related to the U.S. election, even though previous reports found no proof of vote tampering or serious interference.
Shortly after, an assistant to Clapper instructed senior intelligence officials by email to put together a new assessment “per the President’s request,” describing Russian methods and actions in the election.
This led to the January 6, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which, Gabbard claims, ignored earlier conclusions and drew from the disputed Steele dossier. The dossier contained unverified claims funded by the Clinton campaign, and some intelligence officials dismissed its contents as an “internet rumour.”
Still, it made its way into the ICA’s annex at the insistence of FBI Director James Comey, despite opposition from CIA analysts.
Gabbard accuses Obama’s team of altering intelligence for political reasons, stating that this set the stage for the lengthy Trump-Russia investigation that dominated Trump’s first term and affected U.S.-Russia relations.
She has sent the files to the Justice Department to investigate possible criminal wrongdoing, a step supported by current CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who has ordered separate investigations into Brennan and Comey for their involvement.
Media Coverage: Downplaying and Questioning
Allegations described by Gabbard as a “years-long coup” would usually attract major media attention. Instead, mainstream outlets have often treated the story as a partisan attack. Network news review shows a trend of coverage that either casts doubt on Gabbard or largely ignores the evidence in the documents.
ABC News and NBC News did not mention the declassification on air up to July 20, as found by Grabien Media transcript searches. CBS News covered it briefly on “Face the Nation,” where anchor Margaret Brennan gave Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, a chance to dismiss Gabbard’s claims as “baseless.”
CNN mentioned the release twice, both times featuring Democratic lawmakers pushing back against the story but not addressing the actual content of the documents.
The New York Times called Gabbard’s report “politically motivated” and “error-ridden” in a July 19 article, mainly quoting Democrats like Himes who argue the release conflicts with the accepted story about Russian interference.
The Times leaned on a 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report, which found Russia meddled with social media and hacking campaigns but turned up no evidence of vote tampering. Gabbard’s files do not challenge this point directly, instead arguing that the collusion narrative was blown out of proportion.
NPR and The Washington Post framed Gabbard’s move as part of Trump’s wider goal to change the history of his election win. NPR’s July 22 report noted that the 2017 ICA focused on influence operations, not actual vote changes, and accused Gabbard of misrepresenting the intelligence community’s findings.
The Washington Post, which had received many intelligence leaks in 2016 and 2017, cited unnamed sources who said Gabbard’s release aimed to distract from Trump’s links to Jeffrey Epstein.
Multiple outlets also questioned Gabbard’s background in intelligence and her past remarks on Russia, suggesting her comments align with Moscow’s viewpoint.
The Independent and Rolling Stone called her appointment as DNI “controversial” and speculated on her loyalty, with Rolling Stone labelling her a “former Democrat turned MAGA” working to back Trump.
Instead of focusing on the content of the documents, many stories focused on Gabbard’s political history or Trump’s public claims about the Russia investigation.
Obama’s Response and the Media’s Echo
On July 22, Obama’s team released a statement dismissing Gabbard’s allegations as “bizarre” and “an obvious attempt at distraction.” He repeated that the 2017 ICA’s conclusions are still widely accepted and argued that the declassified files do not challenge the idea that Russia tried to shape U.S. public opinion.
Media outlets such as CNN, The Guardian, and The Hill quickly picked up Obama’s rebuttal, giving it top billing and pushing Gabbard’s evidence into the background.
This pattern of supporting Obama brings back memories of 2016, when news outlets often published leaks about Russian interference from anonymous intelligence officials. Gabbard’s files suggest those leaks, which began after the December 9 White House meeting, were part of a plan to reinforce the collusion claims.
Even now, many outlets continue promoting the same narrative, treating Gabbard’s release as a politically charged move rather than a matter for careful review.
What It Means for Trust and Accountability
The decision by major news media to avoid a close look at Gabbard’s allegations highlights big questions about the media’s watchdog role. If the declassified files are accurate, they point to top Obama officials using intelligence to affect an election outcome.
Stories with this level of seriousness deserve thorough reporting, but so far, large outlets have focused on dismissing or downplaying the issue. This approach shields Obama and his administration while deepening public concerns about bias in both media and intelligence circles.
Social media is now filled with posts from users like @bennyjohnson and @saras76, who accuse mainstream media of ignoring a “huge scandal” to shield Obama.
One viral post stated, “Tulsi Gabbard just hit Barack Obama with a knockout punch,” highlighting the public’s view that a “coordinated hit job” targeted Trump. While these posts don’t prove anything on their own, they do reflect a wider mood that the media is avoiding tough questions about those in power.
What Happens Next
The Justice Department now has the declassified files, and Gabbard insists that everyone involved must be investigated. She’s promising to see the process through, saying, “No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
Whether these allegations turn out to be the “treasonous conspiracy” Gabbard describes or a serious mistake by the outgoing administration, the public has a right to see a clear review of the evidence.
For now, the coverage by major news organizations suggests a reluctance to question the established story. By echoing Obama’s defence and playing down Gabbard’s statements, media outlets may fuel the sense that the press cares more about protecting certain figures than providing full transparency. As this issue unfolds, the press faces a choice—whether to dig into the facts or stick to defending the old narrative.
