Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has declassified a cache of Obama-era intelligence materials that she claims reveal a “treasonous conspiracy” to delegitimize Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory. But a review of the documents and past investigations shows that Gabbard’s central allegations are not supported by the evidence.
In recent appearances and posts, including a Truth Social message and a Fox News interview, Gabbard alleged that the Obama administration manipulated U.S. intelligence to falsely link Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government to Trump’s rise to power. Gabbard cited a set of 2016 emails, a classified 2018 House report, and a whistleblower memo to support her claims.
“The Obama administration manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false,” Gabbard said.
Reality Check: AP Finds No Shift in Intelligence Conclusions
The Associated Press, which reviewed both the newly released material and the findings from five major investigations into Russian interference, found that the declassified content does not support Gabbard’s assertions.
For instance, Gabbard claimed that prior to the 2016 election, U.S. intelligence agencies assessed that Russia had neither the intent nor capability to impact the election outcome. She suggests that the post-election report—the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)—represented a political pivot.
In fact, no such shift occurred.
The 2016 emails Gabbard referenced, including one from a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official, simply noted that Russian actors had not attempted to directly alter vote tallies. The 2017 ICA made the same point, clearly stating there was no evidence Russia tampered with voting systems.
The core conclusion of the 2017 assessment—that Russia interfered via cyber operations and propaganda to boost Trump and damage Hillary Clinton—was affirmed by bipartisan Senate and House investigations, and two Justice Department special counsels.
Gabbard Cites Dissent, But Debate Is Normal in Intelligence Work
Gabbard also cited dissent within the intelligence community as proof that the Obama administration manufactured false findings. One “whistleblower” quoted in the release claimed he could not “in good conscience” endorse the judgment that Putin had a preference for Trump.
But intelligence officials have long acknowledged some disagreement about Putin’s motives. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2020 that analysts were given full freedom to express differing views and that the process was free of political coercion.
Even Russian President Putin himself stated in 2018 that he favored Trump’s election, citing hopes for improved U.S.-Russia relations:
“Yes, I did,” Putin said at a Helsinki press conference. “Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.”
The Steele Dossier: Misused, But Not Foundational
Gabbard also pointed to the infamous Steele dossier, alleging it was knowingly used despite being “already discredited.”
While the FBI did include parts of the dossier in its application for surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, the dossier was not the basis for launching the Russia investigation. The Justice Department’s inspector general concluded the FBI opened its 2016 probe based on other intelligence.
According to documents Gabbard herself released, it was not Steele’s dossier but a CIA human source close to the Kremlin that underpinned the intelligence community’s conclusion that Putin favored Trump.
Context: Gabbard’s Role and the Political Backdrop
Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate, was appointed Director of National Intelligence in Trump’s second term and has since become a prominent voice in conservative circles.
Her declassification push aligns with efforts by Trump allies to reshape public understanding of the 2016 election and Russia investigation. However, no investigation to date has found that intelligence conclusions were fabricated or politically manipulated by the Obama administration.
The January 2017 ICA remains a central document in U.S. intelligence history, and while critics—including Gabbard—continue to question its motives, the underlying conclusions have held up under bipartisan scrutiny.
