M A Hossain,
By any measure, Tulsi Gabbard’s latest disclosure as Director of National Intelligence is explosive. By declassifying a 2020 House Intelligence Committee report that allegedly reveals Barack Obama’s role in shaping the narrative of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Gabbard has reignited one of the most divisive chapters in recent American history. Her allegation is not merely that mistakes were made, but that a former president deliberately weaponized intelligence to delegitimize his successor—a claim that, if true, would amount to one of the most serious abuses of power in modern times.
But as with so many controversies in Washington, the story is less about black-and-white truths and more about competing narratives that reflect a deeper struggle over the integrity of American institutions. To assess the gravity of these claims, it is worth looking past the political theater and considering the broader historical and institutional context.
A History of Politicized Intelligence
The notion that intelligence can be politicized is neither new nor uniquely American. From the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident that escalated the Vietnam War to the infamous claims of weapons of mass destruction used to justify the invasion of Iraq, history is filled with examples of intelligence selectively presented—or manipulated—to achieve political ends. What Gabbard is alleging, however, strikes at the heart of the democratic transfer of power: that a sitting administration engineered a narrative to weaken a duly elected successor before he even took office.
According to Gabbard’s reading of the newly released report, Obama bypassed standard interagency processes in early 2017 to ensure the Intelligence Community Assessment concluded that Vladimir Putin favored Donald Trump. That assessment was published just days before Trump’s inauguration, creating a political and media environment in which his presidency was immediately viewed through the lens of Russian interference.
It’s worth recalling that the conclusion—namely, that Russia sought to help Trump—was accepted by virtually every major U.S. intelligence agency and echoed in the Mueller investigation, which documented extensive Russian efforts to sow discord online. But Gabbard’s contention is that dissenting views suggesting that Russia’s operational capacity and strategic intent were overstated were allegedly buried because they undermined the prevailing narrative.
Why This Matters
At first glance, this might sound like just another skirmish in America’s never-ending partisan wars. Yet if Gabbard’s claims are substantiated, the implications would be profound. For decades, the peaceful transfer of power has been the bedrock of the American experiment. The idea that an outgoing administration could actively work to delegitimize an incoming one would mark a dangerous escalation in the erosion of democratic norms.
Even in moments of intense political rivalry—say, between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, or Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt—outgoing presidents have generally respected the principle that their successor deserves a clean slate. If Obama indeed orchestrated a last-minute intelligence campaign to shape public perception of Trump, it would not simply be a political maneuver; it would be a fundamental breach of trust.
The Problem of Selective Memory
Of course, the other side of this story cannot be ignored. Russia did interfere in the 2016 election, a fact confirmed not just by intelligence agencies but also by independent cybersecurity experts. Moscow’s goals were to sow chaos, undermine faith in American democracy, and exploit existing political divisions. Whether Vladimir Putin explicitly sought to elect Trump remains debated, but dismissing Russian interference entirely—as some Trump allies have tried to do—is intellectually dishonest.
Moreover, the “Russia Hoax” label itself can be misleading. Even the Mueller report, while finding insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin, did not exonerate Trump’s team of questionable contacts with Russian intermediaries. Gabbard’s disclosure does not erase the fact that Russia was, and remains, an active malign actor in U.S. politics.
This dual reality—Russian interference on one hand, and potential political weaponization of intelligence on the other—is what makes the current controversy so complex. It is entirely possible that both things are true: that Russia did meddle in 2016, and that some within the Obama administration exploited the threat to advance a political narrative.
Lessons from History
If this sounds unprecedented, it is not. Political leaders have often used external threats as tools for internal advantage. Franklin Roosevelt was accused by critics of maneuvering the U.S. into World War II to overcome domestic political challenges. Lyndon Johnson exaggerated the Gulf of Tonkin incident to secure congressional approval for deeper military engagement in Vietnam. More recently, the Bush administration’s selective use of intelligence on Iraq’s supposed WMD program illustrates how the boundaries between national security and political expediency can blur.
What separates those episodes from the present moment is timing and target. In previous cases, intelligence manipulation was aimed outward, justifying wars or foreign interventions. What Gabbard alleges is inward-facing: an effort to sabotage an incoming president. That makes the accusation uniquely corrosive, because it suggests the intelligence community was used not as a shield against foreign threats but as a sword in a domestic political battle.
The Danger of Endless Retaliation
It is tempting for Trump’s allies to seize on Gabbard’s claims as vindication of his long-standing grievances. But even if her allegations are accurate, the appropriate response cannot be to perpetuate a cycle of retribution. America is already trapped in a spiral where each party seeks to criminalize the actions of the other, leaving little room for institutional restraint. If every transition of power becomes a prelude to criminal investigations, the republic risks transforming into a dysfunctional zero-sum state.
This does not mean wrongdoing should go unpunished. If Obama-era officials deliberately suppressed intelligence dissent or bypassed legal procedures, accountability is necessary. But accountability should be pursued with sober deliberation, not partisan vengeance.
What Should Come Next
The real challenge now is not merely determining whether Obama acted improperly, but restoring public trust in institutions that have become dangerously politicized. Gabbard’s revelation underscores a broader crisis: Americans no longer believe that intelligence agencies, law enforcement, or even the media operate as neutral arbiters. Every disclosure, every leak, every report is now filtered through the prism of partisan suspicion.
Rebuilding that trust will require more than declassification and finger-pointing. It will require reforms that insulate intelligence analysis from political influence—perhaps through greater congressional oversight, independent review boards, or stricter transparency rules during election years.
Most importantly, Americans must resist the temptation to view every controversy as a total vindication of their side and a total condemnation of the other. History is rarely so neat.
A Final Reckoning
Tulsi Gabbard’s allegations may never be fully resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. For Trump supporters, they will confirm what they always believed: that the “deep state” plotted to destroy his presidency. For Obama loyalists, they will appear as another cynical attempt to rewrite history.
But for the rest of us, the lesson is more sobering. Democracy is fragile, not because of foreign adversaries but because of what we are willing to do to each other in the pursuit of power. The real scandal is not just whether Obama manipulated intelligence. It is that Americans now assume such a thing is possible—and even likely.
Until that deeper distrust is addressed, the Russia Hoax debate will remain less a closed chapter than a cautionary tale about the price of politicizing the truth.
M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com
This article published at :
1. Eurasia Review, USA : 27 July,25
No comments:
Post a Comment