Tulsi Gabbard’s Allegations of an Obama-Era Conspiracy Against President Trump: A Deep Dive into the Claims

by: Brooklynn Robinson
07/23/2025
Source: UncoverDC
07/23/2025

Obama_Gabbard_2.jpg

In a series of explosive statements, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard has accused the Obama administration of orchestrating what she describes as a “treasonous conspiracy” aimed at undermining President Trump’s 2016 election win. On July 18, 2025, Gabbard released over 100 declassified documents that she claims provide “overwhelming evidence” that senior Obama-era officials, including former President Barack Obama himself, manipulated intelligence to create the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. This narrative, according to Gabbard, was designed to subvert the will of the American people and enact a “years-long coup” against President Trump. These allegations, detailed on several media outlets, have reignited debates about the 2016 election, the integrity of U.S. intelligence agencies, and the politicization of national security. However, the claims have also drawn sharp criticism from Democrats and some intelligence experts, who argue they are politically motivated and lack credible evidence.

Gabbard’s claims center on the declassification of over 100 documents, including emails, memos, and internal communications, which she asserts demonstrate a coordinated effort by Obama administration officials to fabricate intelligence linking Trump to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. According to Gabbard, these documents reveal that prior to the election, the intelligence community consistently assessed that Russia was “probably not trying” to influence the election through cyberattacks. For example, a December 7, 2016, briefing prepared for then-DNI James Clapper stated, “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. Presidential election outcome.”

Gabbard claims that after President Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton, Obama and his national security team—including Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice—directed the creation of a new intelligence assessment. This assessment, released on January 6, 2017, claimed that Russia intervened to help President Trump win, a narrative Gabbard argues directly contradicted earlier findings and relied on the discredited Steele dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. She contends this shift was not based on new evidence but was a deliberate attempt to delegitimize Trump’s presidency. “Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup,” Gabbard stated on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures.

Gabbard has framed the issue as a non-partisan concern, emphasizing that the alleged actions threaten the integrity of the U.S. democratic republic. She has referred the documents to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal investigation, vowing to pursue accountability for all involved, “no matter how powerful.” She also noted that whistleblowers from the intelligence community have come forward since the documents’ release, expressing disgust at the alleged manipulation.

The release of these documents has elicited a polarized response. Republican lawmakers and conservative media outlets have hailed Gabbard’s actions as a courageous exposure of deep-seated corruption. Representative Tom Tiffany (R-WI) described the conspiracy as making “Watergate look like amateur hour,” naming key Obama administration figures and accusing them of orchestrating a hoax with media complicity. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) praised Gabbard’s transparency, calling the actions a “years-long coup attempt.” Breitbart News reported that the declassification prompted a “thunderous response” from GOP leaders, who see it as vindication of President Trump’s long-standing claims that the Russia investigation was a hoax.

Conversely, Democrats and some intelligence experts have sharply criticized Gabbard’s claims. Representative Jim Himes (D-CT), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called the accusations “baseless” and “utter nonsense,” arguing they rehash decade-old claims to distract from other issues, such as the Trump administration’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein-related files. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), a key figure on the Senate Intelligence Committee, pointed to the committee’s unanimous 2016 findings that Russia conducted an aggressive campaign to influence the election, including through social media and probing election infrastructure. Warner accused Gabbard of ignoring these conclusions and politicizing her role as DNI.

A New York Times report also noted that a Senate investigation and intelligence reviews have consistently found evidence of Russian interference, including voter data extraction in states like Illinois and Arizona. However, no direct vote tampering was confirmed. Democrats argue that Gabbard’s report conflates distinct Russian activities and misrepresents Obama’s request for a post-election assessment as manipulation.

The timing of Gabbard’s allegations has raised questions about their intent. The release coincides with scrutiny over the Trump administration’s handling of Epstein-related files, which some MAGA supporters have criticized as insufficiently transparent. Critics, including Himes, suggest Gabbard’s report is an attempt to shift focus from these controversies. Additionally, the declassification follows reports of criminal investigations into Brennan and Comey, fueling speculations about political motivations.

Gabbard’s history as a former Democratic congresswoman who left the party in 2022 to become an independent, and later aligned with President Trump, has also colored perceptions. Her critics, like Warner, have pointed to her reluctance to label Edward Snowden a traitor as evidence of inconsistent standards. Supporters, however, view her as a principled figure willing to challenge the deep state.

If substantiated, Gabbard’s allegations would have profound implications for public trust in U.S. institutions. The claim that a sitting president and his team manipulated intelligence to undermine a successor would indeed be “historic,” as Gabbard described. The documents could potentially lead to DOJ investigations. However, legal experts note that proving “treason” requires evidence of intent to betray the nation, a high bar unlikely to be met based on current information.

However, the polarized reactions highlight a broader issue: the erosion of trust in intelligence agencies and political institutions. Gabbard’s report taps into a narrative of distrust that has grown since 2016, fueled by competing claims about election integrity. Critics argue that her accusations risk further politicizing the intelligence community, which she pledged to depoliticize upon taking office.

While partially redacted, independent experts have not fully analyzed the documents, and their interpretation remains contentious. The reliance on the Steele dossier, for instance, has been debated extensively, with prior investigations, including the Mueller report, finding no direct evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Whether Gabbard’s claims hold up depends on the DOJ’s review and subsequent legal actions.

In conclusion, Tulsi Gabbard’s allegations of an Obama-era “treasonous conspiracy” have reignited a contentious debate about the 2016 election and the role of intelligence in politics. While her supporters see the declassified documents as proof of a deliberate attempt to undermine Trump, critics argue the claims are exaggerated and politically motivated. The truth likely lies in a complex interplay of intelligence assessments, political pressures, and post-election narratives. As the DOJ reviews the documents, the nation watches to see whether these allegations will lead to accountability or further deepen partisan divides.