By 3 Narratives News — Published: July 21, 2025
In the summer of 2016, in a quiet café tucked behind Honolulu’s Kapiʻolani Park, Tulsi Gabbard leaned in across the table from her father. The sun filtered through the slatted windows as she traced a finger around the rim of her coffee mug. “This country,” she said, “has given us so much. But we’re losing trust. And trust,” she paused, “is everything.” At the time, Gabbard was preparing for another deployment with the Hawaii National Guard. She was also weighing the future of her political career. Few could have predicted that nearly a decade later, she would be at the center of one of the most consequential political referrals in modern American history.
Last week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard submitted a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, alleging that President Barack Obama and top officials in his administration had “manufactured and politicized” intelligence to promote the Russian-collusion narrative in the aftermath of the 2016 election. What began as a conversation about trust has now become a national reckoning.
Narrative One: Treasonous Conspiracy
Gabbard’s referral is built on newly declassified documents, including emails, memos, and internal assessments from the intelligence community. Among them is a September 12, 2016, report concluding that Russia lacked the capabilities to conduct widespread cyberattacks to affect U.S. voting systems. A follow-up assessment from then-DNI James Clapper, dated December 7, reinforced the same finding.
Gabbard alleges that a December 9 meeting at the Obama White House—attended by President Obama, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and others—marked a turning point. It was there, she claims, that senior officials made the decision to pivot the intelligence narrative toward one that implicated Russia in election interference, despite earlier conclusions suggesting otherwise.
In a press briefing following the referral, Gabbard declared:
“The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy… committed by officials at the highest levels of our government. Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people.”
“No matter how powerful they are, every person involved must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
The criminal referral names former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as primary figures in what Gabbard calls a deliberate effort to overturn the results of the 2016 election. Gabbard’s office confirmed that the DOJ has received the referral and is reviewing the accompanying documentation.
Supporters of the referral view it as long-overdue accountability. “This is Watergate, but worse,” said Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX). “This was an attempted coup disguised as national security.”
Narrative Two: Political Theater and Distraction
But critics have called Gabbard’s move reckless and dangerous. Representative Jim Himes (D-CT), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, dismissed the claims as unfounded and partisan.
“Baseless accusations of treason are not only damaging—they’re unacceptable,” Himes said. “The intelligence community leaders in 2016 took their oath to the Constitution seriously. This is political theater, plain and simple.”
Opponents point to multiple investigations—including Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan findings—that concluded Russia had, in fact, interfered in the 2016 election through cyberattacks and information operations, even though no criminal conspiracy with the Trump campaign was established.
Gabbard’s referral, they argue, offers no new conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, only a reinterpretation of previously assessed intelligence. “This is not a revelation,” said former CIA official Michael Morell. “It’s a re-litigation of old political wounds for current political gain.”
Timing, too, has drawn scrutiny. The move comes just as renewed public outrage simmers over the slow release of Epstein-related documents and the perception that elites remain above the law. As The Daily Beast put it in a headline: “Gabbard Feeds MAGA an Obama Conspiracy Amid Epstein Blowback.”
“Are these people actually going to go to prison,” one commenter posted on X, “or is this more distraction?”
Another added: “We want to know about Epstein. Don’t change the channel.”
Critics argue the referral is meant to shift the national conversation back to a familiar partisan battleground, rallying Trump supporters while blunting criticism of Republican foot-dragging on other high-profile investigations.
Narrative Three: The Intelligence Enforcer
This referral is not an isolated incident. Since assuming her role as DNI, Gabbard has made clear she intends to crack down on politicized intelligence and unauthorized leaks. In April, she referred multiple leakers to the DOJ, including one case tied to a Washington Post story and another allegedly connected to an internal NSA memo.
“Politicization of our intelligence and leaking of classified information puts our national security at risk,” Gabbard said at the time.
“It must end. Those who leak will be found and held accountable.”
Critics of Gabbard’s approach fear a chilling effect on whistleblowers and internal dissent. “We have checks in place for a reason,” said former NSA lawyer Susan Hennessey. “Turning intelligence oversight into a political tool endangers democracy more than it protects it.”
Still, Gabbard’s defenders argue she is doing exactly what voters demanded: restoring order to a system that many view as compromised during and after the Trump presidency.
Why Obama, and Why Now?
Three factors may help explain the timing and target of Gabbard’s referral:
1. Base Activation
The Obama-era intelligence officials named in the referral are well-known figures in conservative circles. Naming them taps into long-held anger about the Russia investigation. The move reinforces a narrative of “deep state” betrayal that has energized the MAGA base since 2017.
2. Narrative Reversal
As new chapters unfold in the Trump presidency—including a possible 2026 re-election bid—undermining the origins of the Russia probe bolsters Trump’s position and damages the legacy of his critics. If the foundation of the Russia narrative is discredited, so too is the legitimacy of the entire investigation.
3. Media Distraction
With public interest surging around unsealed Epstein documents and the perception that the political class protects its own, this referral changes the subject. By making Obama the focal point, the Gabbard team may be redirecting national attention from uncomfortable questions within their own ranks.
What Happens Now?
The DOJ has acknowledged receipt of the referral but has offered no timeline for further action. Proving treason or conspiracy would require demonstrating intent to deceive and orchestrate an illegal political outcome—an enormously high legal bar.
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) announced plans to release a previously classified appendix from a 2018 Inspector General report that may shed more light on how the 2016 intelligence findings were handled. Grassley said, “If wrongdoing occurred, the American people deserve to know.”
Meanwhile, the public debate intensifies.
Final Assessment
| Perspective | Summary |
|---|---|
| Gabbard and Allies | The referral is a turning point for justice and accountability. |
| Democratic Critics | It’s an unfounded attack meant to distract and inflame. |
| Institutional Observers | Until intent and criminal coordination are proven, it remains political theater. |
Whether this moment marks the beginning of a historic reckoning or another episode in an endless partisan war will depend on what comes next: documents, testimony, and above all, truth.
For Tulsi Gabbard, it began with a quiet promise over coffee. Where it ends is still unknown.
Sources:
Let me know if you’d like a downloadable version (Word, PDF, or HTML) or a cover image to accompany the article.
