CIA Agents Blame Obama-Era Officials for Erosion of Trust in Intelligence Community

A growing storm is once again engulfing Washington as former CIA officers and intelligence community insiders speak out, accusing Obama-era officials of politicizing intelligence operations and undermining public trust in national security institutions.

The renewed outrage follows the release of a trove of newly declassified documents by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who alleges that the U.S. intelligence apparatus was deliberately weaponized to frame then-President-elect Donald Trump for collusion with Russia in the aftermath of the 2016 election.

Gabbard's disclosure includes what she calls overwhelming evidence that the top brass of the Obama administration—namely former President Barack Obama, ex-CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, and former DNI James Clapper—intentionally manipulated intelligence to advance a political narrative.

According to her, this narrative ultimately fueled the multi-year investigation into supposed Trump-Russia ties, an effort that consumed the nation’s political landscape but produced no charges of collusion.

These explosive claims have sparked immediate backlash from within the intelligence community. Many former CIA analysts say the scandal represents one of the most damaging credibility crises in the agency’s modern history.

Fred Fleitz, a seasoned former CIA analyst who also served as chief of staff for the National Security Council, told The Washington Times that the intelligence community is still reeling from the fallout of what he calls “a politically motivated abuse of power.”

“The whole thing really undermined the reputation of U.S. intelligence—not just the CIA but the entire apparatus,” said Fleitz. “It made it look like it’s a big political game. There’s always been some politics in intelligence, but it was never as bad as it was when Trump became president.”

Fleitz further pointed to the actions of then-Rep. Adam Schiff and former CIA Director Brennan as examples of partisan exploitation of intelligence for political ends.

“There always were some guardrails that people wouldn’t cross, but they were all broken when Trump became president, and I still don’t think it’s recovered,” he added.

The documents released by Gabbard allegedly reveal that a false intelligence community assessment (ICA) on Russian interference was generated mere weeks after the 2016 election, not for national security purposes, but to serve a political agenda.

The narrative that Trump had colluded with the Kremlin was given institutional legitimacy and used as the basis for surveillance, public smear campaigns, and eventually the Mueller investigation—a process that dominated headlines for years and divided the country.

Since the announcement, Gabbard claims that whistleblowers within the intelligence community have been coming forward in increasing numbers to corroborate what the declassified documents suggest.

“We have whistleblowers… coming forward now, after we released these documents,” Gabbard said in a recent interview on Fox News.

“There are people who were around, who were working within the intelligence community who are so disgusted by what happened. We’re starting to see some of them come out of the woodwork here because they, too, like you and I and the American people, want to see justice delivered.”

The release of the documents has forced some of the individuals named to respond. Former DNI James Clapper reportedly said in a televised interview that he had “lawyered up,” suggesting he may be preparing for legal consequences in light of the Justice Department’s criminal referral.

At the heart of this growing controversy is the alleged fabrication and politicization of intelligence reports. Gabbard, who took over as Director of National Intelligence amid promises to clean house, submitted the declassified materials to the DOJ as part of a formal criminal referral.

The referral calls for an investigation into whether top officials in the Obama administration knowingly created or endorsed false intelligence to delegitimize Trump’s presidency before it even began.

The political ramifications are as serious as the legal ones. For years, President Trump and his allies have insisted that the Russia collusion narrative was a hoax, crafted and weaponized by his political opponents.

These new revelations lend credence to that argument and could provide the foundation for a renewed push for accountability—especially if whistleblowers are willing to testify publicly.

The documents released by Gabbard claim to show a deliberate effort by senior intelligence figures to sideline dissenting analysts and present a skewed version of events to the public.

Of particular note is Brennan’s alleged role in pushing the Steele dossier, a controversial and largely discredited document compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.

Critics say Brennan’s endorsement of the dossier helped elevate it to national prominence and gave cover to further investigative efforts based on flimsy evidence.

Fred Fleitz didn’t mince words when describing Brennan’s legacy. “My friends and acquaintances within the intelligence community really despise Mr. Brennan,” he said.

“I think he was a political hack who did a lot of damage to the agency—not just with this Intelligence Community Assessment and with his promotion of the Steele dossier, but with years of political commentary on MSNBC attacking Trump.”

Fleitz emphasized that Brennan’s behavior broke with long-standing norms of professional conduct. “As a former CIA officer, that’s just not done. It’s not dignified, and it really angered Trump. It made him distrust American intelligence even more,” he added.

That distrust, cultivated over years of conflict between the Trump administration and the intelligence agencies, is now being vindicated in the eyes of many conservatives. The damage to institutional credibility, however, may be longer lasting.

In a cryptic post following Gabbard’s announcement, FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino took to X (formerly Twitter) to hint at even deeper levels of corruption within the federal government.

“The Director and I are committed to stamping out public corruption and the political weaponization of both law enforcement and intelligence operations,” the post read.

“It is a priority for us. But what I have learned in the course of our properly predicated and necessary investigations into these aforementioned matters has shocked me down to my core. We cannot run a Republic like this. I’ll never be the same after learning what I’ve learned.”

That statement has only further fueled speculation that the declassified documents are just the beginning of a larger reckoning. Gabbard’s decision to make the materials public has been praised by civil liberties advocates and transparency watchdogs alike, many of whom have long warned about the dangers of unchecked power within intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

It is also re-opening painful questions about the role of legacy media during the Trump presidency. For years, major outlets echoed the intelligence community’s assessment that Trump was compromised by Russia.

Few of those outlets have acknowledged the possibility that they were misled by politicized sources. With whistleblowers now emerging, and the DOJ investigating, the narrative that once dominated cable news is beginning to unravel.

Whether the Justice Department will ultimately pursue criminal charges remains unclear. But the political stakes are already enormous. For Trump and his supporters, the revelations serve as vindication and a powerful tool in future electoral messaging.

For the broader intelligence community, it is yet another hit to its public standing and a cautionary tale about the costs of political interference.

As the dust settles, one thing is clear: this is not merely a partisan issue—it is a national one. The integrity of American institutions depends on their ability to operate free of political manipulation.

If senior officials in the Obama administration did indeed manipulate intelligence to target political opponents, it would represent a fundamental betrayal of democratic norms and public trust.

And if the growing number of whistleblowers are to be believed, the full extent of the scandal may still be hidden beneath the surface.