Today's News: Gabbard Alleges Obama-Era “Treasonous Conspiracy” Over Russian Election Interference
Critics, including Democrats and former intelligence officials, dismiss these claims as a partisan attempt to rewrite history, politicize intelligence, and deflect attention from Trump controversies.
Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Overview
Date: July 22-23, 2025
Topic: Trump Administration Escalates Allegations of Obama-Era “Treasonous Conspiracy” Regarding 2016 Russia Election Interference
Summary: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, supported by President Trump, has intensified accusations that the Obama administration engaged in a “treasonous conspiracy” by “manufacturing” intelligence regarding Russia’s interference in the 2016 election to undermine Trump. Gabbard declassified a 2017 House Intelligence Committee report, arguing it shows the original assessment, which concluded Russia favored Trump, was rushed, politicized, and based on weak evidence. In response, the Justice Department announced the formation of a task force to investigate these unsubstantiated allegations, including potential criminal implications for former President Obama. Critics, including Democrats and former intelligence officials, dismiss these claims as a partisan attempt to rewrite history, politicize intelligence, and deflect attention from President Trump’s controversies, particularly concerning the Jeffrey Epstein files. They highlight that numerous bipartisan investigations have affirmed the original intelligence assessment.
Sources
The New York Times - Targeting Obama, Trump’s Retribution Campaign Takes Another Turn
CNN - Gabbard releases more Russia documents to accuse Obama of ‘manufacturing’ intelligence
The Washington Post - White House escalates attack on Obama, relitigating 2016 grievances
Key Points
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and President Trump accuse the Obama administration of “manufacturing” or “politicizing” the 2016 intelligence assessment on Russian election interference, alleging a “treasonous conspiracy” or “yearslong coup” led by former President Obama.
Gabbard declassified a 2017 House Intelligence Committee report, drafted by Republicans, which she asserts supports these claims by disputing key findings of the original 2016 intelligence assessment, particularly the conclusion that Russia favored Donald Trump’s victory.
The Justice Department announced the formation of a task force or “strike force” to assess the evidence released by Gabbard and investigate potential criminal implications, including for former President Obama.
Multiple articles suggest these renewed attacks are a strategy to deflect attention from President Trump’s ongoing controversies, specifically his administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation files.
Critics, including Democrats and former intelligence officials, express concerns that the declassification risks exposing sensitive intelligence sources and methods used to spy on Russia, potentially endangering assets.
The legal implications for any potential prosecution of former President Obama are noted, with the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling granting presidents broad immunity for official acts while in office posing a significant hurdle.
Unique Highlights
The New York Times - Gabbard Releases New Documents Targeting Obama Administration, as Justice Dept. Forms Task Force: Specifies that Kash Patel, now FBI Director, was a key author of the House report released by Gabbard. It also provides details on the House report’s criticism of the Steele dossier’s inclusion, describing its tone as “amateurish conspiracy and political propaganda.”
The New York Times - Targeting Obama, Trump’s Retribution Campaign Takes Another Turn: Details President Trump’s broader “retribution campaign,” which includes targeting law firms, universities (specifically Harvard), “deep state” bureaucrats, and news organizations. It also includes a quote from Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene about the desire for “the whole steak dinner” of retribution.
CNN: Reports on Director Gabbard’s recent standing within the Trump administration, noting that President Trump had publicly undermined her assessment on Iran’s nuclear capabilities in June and viewed her as “off-message” prior to these declassifications. It also mentions that an unredacted copy of the documents went missing after the first Trump administration.
Fox News: Quotes Obama spokesman Patrick Rodenbush, who explicitly labeled the accusations as “bizarre,” “ridiculous,” and a “weak attempt at distraction.” It also lists other Obama administration officials Gabbard’s declassified documents reportedly name: James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, and Andrew McCabe.
The Washington Post: Highlights that Director Gabbard’s appearance at the White House press briefing to denounce former senior government officials was an “unprecedented act for a serving senior intelligence official,” given her prior pledge to remain apolitical. It also includes direct quotes from former CIA analysts Michael Van Landingham and Susan Miller, who were involved in the 2017 assessment, defending the original intelligence.
The Wall Street Journal: Notes that Director Gabbard’s previous declassification on Friday “conflated two related but separate 2016 election issues: Russia’s support for Trump and the Kremlin’s capacity for changing votes,” and listed instances where U.S. intelligence officials stated Russia would not or did not manipulate the vote count.
Contrasting Details
Interpretation of the House Intelligence Committee Report:
Tulsi Gabbard and Trump administration (across all articles): Assert the declassified House report provides “irrefutable evidence” that the Obama administration “manufactured” or “politicized” the 2016 intelligence assessment, particularly the conclusion that Russia favored Trump. Gabbard claims the report demonstrates the narrative was “contrived” (The New York Times - Gabbard Releases New Documents, CNN, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal).
Critics and Former Officials (CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal): Counter that the House report does not support the claim that the assessment was “manufactured.” CNN states, “her claims that the Obama administration ‘manufactured’ the assessment are not supported by the newly redacted House report.” The Washington Post describes it as a “partisan document” that “does not accurately reflect U.S. intelligence officials’ work.”
Reliability of the 2016 Intelligence Assessment’s Conclusion on Putin’s Preference:
Gabbard and the House Report (The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post): Argue that the assessment’s judgment that Putin favored Trump was based on “thin sourcing,” “unclear or unknown sources,” a “single source who was biased,” or “one scant, unclear and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from a single” human source. The House report stated this conclusion “did not follow the ‘professional criteria’” of other findings (The New York Times - Gabbard Releases New Documents).
Bipartisan Senate Report and Former Officials (The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal): Maintain that the overall assessment, including the conclusion on Putin’s preference, was sound and upheld by multiple investigations. The New York Times (Gabbard Releases New Documents) notes the Senate Intelligence Committee “affirmed the work of the C.I.A. and the other intelligence agencies on the 2016 assessment.” CNN states, “Ratcliffe’s review found that ‘the overall assessment was deemed defensible.’” The Washington Post quotes former CIA analyst Michael Van Landingham, stating the source was “very reliable and well-regarded,” and Susan Miller, who led the assessment, stating, “We had all the good sourcing. We did exactly what should have been done.”
Influence of the Steele Dossier on the 2016 Assessment:
House Report (The New York Times, CNN): Argues the Steele dossier “misrepresented the significance and credibility” of Mr. Steele’s work and that a classified version of the assessment referred readers to an annex discussing the dossier, implying it had undue influence.
Former Officials (The New York Times, CNN): Insist the Steele dossier did not influence the findings of the 2016 assessment. The New York Times (Gabbard Releases New Documents) states former officials said the C.I.A. “did not take it seriously and did not allow it to influence their assessment.” CNN notes “The intelligence analysts who prepared the report told the Senate Intelligence Committee the dossier played no role in the analysis of Russia’s interference.”
The Newsie Project uses AI to summarize, compare, and contrast the reporting of the major US and world online news sources.
This is an evolving project. Tools, approaches, and output formats will change over time. The Newsie Project does not attempt to provide a definitive capsule of any news story. While the incidence of errors in these summaries is low, and I attempt to spot-check details, AI tools can hallucinate. Please click through and read the articles for details (some may be paywalled).