WASHINGTON, D.C. – A major disclosure could redraw the story of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Tulsi Gabbard, the current Director of National Intelligence, has released over 100 pages of records that claim former President Barack Obama and top national security aides altered intelligence to shape a story about Russian meddling.
Gabbard’s team is calling the release “The Russia Hoax” and says officials committed a “treasonous conspiracy” to weaken Donald Trump’s win over Hillary Clinton. This move has put the spotlight on the intelligence community and sparked a debate on whether national security was used for political ends.
These declassified files, made public on July 18, 2025, include emails, notes, and private discussions. The records detail an alleged plan among Obama’s trusted advisers—James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, Susan Rice, and Loretta Lynch—to create and leak misleading intelligence reports.
Gabbard claims this was done to cast doubt on Trump’s win and launch what she calls a “years-long coup” against his presidency. The documents, now with the Justice Department, suggest the Obama team took drastic steps to reverse the voters’ choice.
Obama Changing Intelligence Reports
Gabbard’s claims focus on a shift in official findings before and after the election. She points to assessments in the months before November 2016 where agencies stated Russia was “probably not trying…to influence the election by using cyber means.”
A draft of the President’s Daily Brief from December 8, 2016, written by the CIA, NSA, FBI, and DHS, said Russia “did not impact recent U.S. election results” with cyberattacks. This draft, according to emails, was later withdrawn after the White House gave “new guidance.”
On December 9, 2016, Obama gathered his top security staff in the Situation Room. Reports say officials like Clapper, Brennan, and Rice were told to put together a new assessment alleging Russia helped Trump win. This new stance clashed with earlier views.
By January 6, 2017, just before Trump took office, the Obama administration released a public report saying Russia interfered in the election. Gabbard argues this report relied heavily on the Steele dossier, a paper funded by the Clinton campaign and put together by former British spy Christopher Steele, which has faced criticism for using unverified claims.
The report from Gabbard says this update “suppressed” findings that Russia neither tried nor was able to change the results. A whistleblower from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is cited, saying they were ignored after asking about inconsistencies and barred from getting “further information” tied to the new story.
The documents claim insiders began leaking false tips to major media like the Washington Post, suggesting Russia used hacking tactics to sway the vote and setting off a frenzy that drove headlines and investigations for years.
Role of the Steele Dossier and Media Coverage
Gabbard highlights the Steele dossier’s influence in shaping the official story. Though widely seen as unreliable by many in intelligence, she says the Obama administration still used the dossier in the January 2017 intelligence report and brushed aside those who questioned it.
The documents show multiple leaks to the press soon after the December 9 meeting. That same day, the Washington Post published a claim from anonymous sources that the CIA believed Russia helped Trump. Gabbard insists these leaks were part of a planned effort to sell a politically motivated story and undermine Trump’s victory.
The reaction was huge: Russia’s interference dominated news, prompted the Mueller investigation, worsened relations with Russia, and led to several Trump associates being charged or jailed. The issue caused deep splits across the country.
Political Debate and Pushback
Gabbard’s findings have set off a heated argument. Democrats, including Senator Mark Warner, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s vice chair, say the claims are “politically motivated” and full of mistakes.
Warner references a bipartisan Senate investigation from Trump’s first term that said Russia did try to sway the 2016 election, but found no sign that the 2016 assessment was rigged for politics or that the Trump campaign worked with Russia.
Representative Jim Himes, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called Gabbard’s treason charges “baseless.” He maintains the intelligence community’s findings were carefully reviewed.
Some critics point to Gabbard’s lack of intelligence experience and previous comments that appeared sympathetic to Vladimir Putin. Her appointment as intelligence director came in February 2025 under Trump and passed the Senate by a tight vote.
Her record of echoing Russian viewpoints in the Ukraine conflict has drawn attention from Democrats, who say she is twisting findings to fit Trump’s story. The administration is already facing scrutiny over other issues, like the delayed release of Epstein files.
Republicans have rallied behind Gabbard’s report. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson called the documents proof of taking down the so-called “Deep State.” On social media, Trump supporters are demanding that Obama-era officials be held accountable.
The news has renewed debate about the Mueller investigation, which said Russia did try to interfere in sweeping fashion but did not find coordination with Trump’s campaign. Gabbard and her supporters argue that this investigation, which cost nearly $40 million, started with false information.
A Country on Edge
The fallout from Gabbard’s report could be wide-reaching. If the allegations are true, they suggest the Obama administration tried to undo the results of a democratic election. The Russia narrative made the U.S. more divided, heightened tensions with Russia, and overshadowed Trump’s first term.
But many still question the report’s trustworthiness. While early intelligence reports underplayed Russia’s efforts, later investigations like Mueller’s and the Senate’s found Russia had used hacking and disinformation—such as hacking Democratic National Committee emails—to try to influence the outcome. Gabbard’s heavy use of the whistleblower’s claims and her take on the Steele dossier’s role are being doubted by those who say the dossier was just one piece of a larger puzzle.
With the Justice Department now reviewing the documents, the country is watching for legal and political fallout. Gabbard is pushing for charges against Obama, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and others, raising the rare accusation of treason. Whether these claims result in charges or just keep fueling the culture wars isn’t clear.
The release has reopened old wounds, bringing the 2016 election and debate over the “Deep State” back into the spotlight. One comment circulating online sums up the mood among some: “Tulsi Gabbard dropping these declassified bombshells proves Obama orchestrated a full-on deception to smear Trump with that Russia hoax.
The IC’s draft brief from 2016 says NO real election impact? That’s the nail in the coffin for his legacy!” Whether true or just more partisan heat, these revelations guarantee that arguments over the 2016 election won’t fade soon.
The Obama administration has not offered a public reply. The Justice Department has declined to comment on possible investigations. As the story moves forward, it’s clear that debates over the last decade’s election are far from settled.
