Explained: How Tulsi Gabbard's House Intelligence Committee report challenges Obama officials' Russia narrative - and gives Trump new ammunition

Time of India

24-07-2025

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard
There are stories that refuse to stay buried. This one comes wrapped in a manila folder, half-burnt, half-declassified, and now very much a political grenade.
This week, Director of National Intelligence
Tulsi Gabbard
blew the dust off a long-suppressed House Intelligence Committee report that takes aim at one of the most sacred narratives of American liberal orthodoxy: that Russia wanted
Donald Trump
to win in 2016.
What Gabbard released wasn't just a report—it was a Molotov cocktail thrown at the edifice of the Obama-era intelligence establishment.
The fallout? A Justice Department task force has now been formed to examine whether Obama officials weaponised intelligence to launch what Gabbard calls a 'treasonous conspiracy' against Trump. The phrase may be incendiary—but the allegations are dead serious.
TL;DR
Gabbard has declassified a once-classified House Intelligence Committee report that disputes the 2016 intelligence claim that Putin favoured Trump.
The report argues the original assessment relied on flimsy, biased, and unverifiable intelligence—some of which CIA analysts reportedly tried to block.
Gabbard accuses the Obama administration of orchestrating a politically motivated 'manufacturing' of the Russia-Trump narrative.
The Department of Justice has created a dedicated task force to investigate the origins and legality of the intelligence assessment.
The report had been withheld for years due to internal CIA opposition and concerns over revealing sources and methods.
What's in the Report?
The document, first drafted in 2017 but buried for years, focuses on four key 'evidentiary' pieces that allegedly supported the claim that Putin wanted Trump to win.
According to the report:
One was the now-discredited Steele Dossier.
Another was an email with no author, recipient, or date.
A third was a sentence fragment that even CIA analysts couldn't decipher.
The fourth was a mosaic of press clippings, out-of-date liaison intel, and Russian punditry that made no direct mention of Trump.
Even Brennan's handpicked CIA analysts were reportedly uneasy. Two warned that the conclusions about Putin's motives did not meet standard tradecraft. Their warnings were dismissed. When one raised doubts about the Steele Dossier's credibility, former CIA Director John Brennan is said to have replied, 'Yes, but doesn't it ring true?'
The report itself was compiled by a team of investigators assigned by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence under then-chairman Devin Nunes. The team included career intelligence experts and legal analysts who conducted an exhaustive 2,300-hour review of classified source material, much of it at CIA headquarters. Among the key drafters was
Kash Patel
, now serving as Trump's FBI Director.
The report underwent multiple revisions through 2020 but was kept classified until Gabbard ordered its release in 2025.
This internal dissent was overruled. The resulting Intelligence Community Assessment was published in January 2017 and became the foundation for years of investigations, op-eds, and cable news hysteria. But now, in Gabbard's telling, it all began with smoke and mirrors.
Why Was It Suppressed?
The report was finished in 2017 and updated in 2020, but it never saw the light of day.
Intelligence officials, particularly within the CIA, objected to its release on the grounds that it could expose sources and methods. Others within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reportedly feared it would embarrass senior figures from the Obama era—including Brennan, Clapper, and Comey.
It remained locked in a secure facility, reportedly at CIA headquarters, until Gabbard—at Trump's urging—ordered its release in 2025.
The irony, of course, is rich: a report about politicisation being suppressed for political reasons.
What Is the Justice Department Doing?
In a brief but pointed announcement, the Department of Justice confirmed the formation of a new task force to investigate the origins of the 2016 ICA and any unlawful actions tied to its development or dissemination. While the statement avoided inflammatory language, officials privately admit the probe could extend to former intelligence leaders—and even the former president himself.
Gabbard has claimed that she has referred specific documents and findings to the FBI. Trump, for his part, has called the revelations 'proof of treason.' Aides say further disclosures may follow, depending on how the Justice Department proceeds.
For now, the task force is in evidence-gathering mode. But subpoenas, depositions, and closed-door hearings are widely expected in the coming weeks.
Why It Matters
1. It reframes the entire Russia-Trump narrative
If the ICA's core conclusion was politically driven or based on unreliable intel, years of investigations, impeachments, and prosecutions are thrown into question.
2. It strikes at the credibility of Obama-era intelligence leaders
Comey, Brennan, Clapper—all played key roles in shaping public understanding of the Russia probe. This report casts a shadow over their decisions and internal judgment.
3. It underscores the risk of politicised intelligence
The line between analysis and advocacy is supposed to be sacred. If Gabbard's accusations hold, that line was obliterated.
4. It raises questions about oversight and transparency
Why was a congressional report hidden from the public for nearly eight years? And what else remains under lock and key?
5. It revives Trump's case against the so-called 'deep state'
Just as the Epstein files threatened to swamp him, Trump now has a new narrative: he was the victim of a fabricated intelligence coup.
From Baghdad to Steele: A Pattern of Manufactured Consent?
In a blistering thread, journalist Matt Taibbi draws a direct parallel between the Steele Dossier and the Iraq War's false WMD claims, alleging that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials knowingly pushed flawed information to damage Donald Trump. According to Taibbi, FBI analysts were ordered to 'push' the Steele material despite raising concerns about its credibility. When confronted about its flaws, CIA Director John Brennan reportedly brushed them aside with the comment, 'Yes, but doesn't it ring true?' FBI Director James Comey insisted the dossier was 'important' enough to include in official briefings.
Taibbi highlights how James Clapper, who previously admitted to finding things that 'weren't really there' during the Iraq WMD fiasco, played a similar role in amplifying the dossier's claims. Taibbi argues this was not just a case of bad intelligence but a deliberate, coordinated effort to mislead—one that ruined reputations, sowed division, and paralyzed the country, all based on what now appears to have been a demonstrable lie.
FAQ
Did Russia interfere in the 2016 election?
Yes. The new report does not challenge the existence of interference—it questions the claim that Putin had a 'clear preference' for Trump.
Does this exonerate Trump?
Politically, perhaps. Legally, not necessarily. But it does challenge the legitimacy of the foundational intelligence that led to years of investigations.
Why did the Steele Dossier matter?
Though officials now claim it played no role in the ICA's analytic judgments, the report reveals that it was cited in the classified annex and used to shape the context of the assessment.
Was Brennan warned?
Yes. The report suggests multiple analysts raised concerns about the dossier and other evidence. Brennan overruled them.
What happens next?
Expect subpoenas, hearings, and intense media crossfire. Trump allies are already calling for charges against Brennan and Comey. Obama's role will likely come under scrutiny.
Final Word
For years, critics of the Russia-Trump narrative were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. With Tulsi Gabbard's release of the suppressed report and the Justice Department now on the case, the conspiracy may have finally become the headline. The question is no longer whether Russia interfered—but whether America's own intelligence agencies played politics with the truth.