The political and legal fallout from the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States is beginning to echo far beyond its original intent.
While the case initially centered on President Donald Trump’s immunity from prosecution for actions taken during his presidency, the broader implications are now raising alarms among Trump allies, who claim the ruling could unintentionally shield former President Barack Obama from criminal accountability in the alleged “Russiagate conspiracy” that has once again seized national attention.
Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, reignited the firestorm last week when she appeared on Fox News and accused Obama and senior intelligence officials of orchestrating a treasonous coup attempt to derail Trump’s presidency before it even began.
Gabbard, who declassified new materials she claims support her accusations, said she plans to file a criminal referral with the Department of Justice and the FBI.
“We’ve uncovered clear evidence that President Obama was directing intelligence leaders to produce politically weaponized reports that falsely linked Donald Trump to the Russian government,” Gabbard stated. “This was not just political misconduct—it was a treasonous conspiracy against a duly elected president. There must be indictments.”
The criminal referral reportedly includes a declassified 2020 report prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during a Republican-led investigation into the origins of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).
According to the report, the ICA was rushed, based on flawed data, and improperly manipulated by top officials under the direction of Obama and CIA Director John Brennan.
The report outlines how Brennan allegedly insisted on including discredited elements of the so-called Steele dossier—intelligence based on what the committee called “internet rumor”—even after CIA officers warned of its unreliable origin.
Moreover, the ICA was drafted by just five CIA analysts under unusual pressure from senior political appointees, and its publication was reportedly rushed to beat Trump’s inauguration.
“This was not a consensus product of the entire intelligence community,” Gabbard emphasized. “It was a politicized hit piece ordered by Obama and carried out by a handful of operatives under his command. This was not intelligence—it was propaganda masquerading as analysis.”
But the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States may now complicate efforts to hold Obama accountable. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for any “official acts” undertaken during their time in office.
Legal scholars widely interpreted the ruling as a monumental win for Trump, who has faced a barrage of legal challenges stemming from his presidency. But that same ruling may now apply to Obama, effectively shielding him from prosecution for decisions made while directing the intelligence community.
Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett explained the irony during a segment on Hannity, saying, “Obama should be thanking Trump. Because the Supreme Court ruling that was meant to protect Trump from politically motivated prosecutions also now protects Obama from facing accountability for what Tulsi Gabbard is calling treason.”
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), a longtime critic of the Russiagate investigation, joined Jarrett during the segment and pointed to former CIA Director Brennan’s testimony before Congress.
“John Brennan misled Congress, specifically about the Steele dossier,” Jordan said. “There are people now going through those transcripts, and it’s obvious he wasn’t being honest. But with this ruling, the bar for prosecution just got a lot higher.”
That hasn't deterred Gabbard. She maintains that the magnitude of the misconduct uncovered in the newly declassified documents demands accountability, regardless of the legal obstacles.
“If we allow this to go unpunished,” she said, “we’re sending a message that the intelligence community can be weaponized for partisan purposes, and no one will be held responsible—not even the President of the United States.”
Among the most damning findings in the 2020 House Intelligence Committee report is the claim that Brennan ordered the release of 15 intelligence reports post-election, three of which were described as “substandard,” containing material that was “unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, or implausible.”
These reports, the committee alleges, became foundational to the ICA’s conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton—an assessment that shaped the public and media narrative for years.
The report also highlights how the ICA “ignored or selectively quoted” credible intelligence that contradicted the conclusion about Putin’s intentions. One CIA officer reportedly warned Brennan that “we don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected,” yet that caution was omitted from the final published document.
In addition to Brennan, Gabbard’s referral may target former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former FBI Director James Comey—both of whom played significant roles in the early days of the Trump-Russia investigation.
But as critics of the referral point out, these officials could all now claim immunity under the same precedent established by Trump v. United States.
Legal experts remain divided on the issue. Some argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling provides a blanket immunity that makes prosecution impossible for any official act, even if politically motivated.
Others say the immunity only covers actions taken within the scope of a president’s constitutional authority—not actions designed to subvert democratic institutions.
“There’s a gray area here,” said constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz. “If it can be proven that Obama or his appointees knowingly fabricated intelligence, that might fall outside the scope of protected ‘official acts.’ But proving intent, especially at that level, is extraordinarily difficult.”
Meanwhile, supporters of Gabbard and Trump say the pursuit of justice is a moral obligation, regardless of the legal hurdles. “The American people were lied to for years,” said Pam Bondi, a former Florida attorney general now advising Gabbard’s team. “This wasn’t just dirty politics—it was a coordinated assault on a presidency, and the people behind it must face consequences.”
The political implications are enormous. As the 2026 midterm elections approach, Republicans are seizing on the scandal to galvanize voters and revive calls for sweeping reform of the intelligence community. Trump has already signaled that he intends to make the “deep state conspiracy” a central theme of the election cycle.
“This is not just about 2016,” Trump told supporters at a recent rally in Pennsylvania. “This is about restoring your voice, your vote, and your government. The swamp tried to take it all away. But we’re fighting back—and we’re going to win.”
Democrats, on the other hand, accuse Gabbard and Trump of weaponizing the intelligence community for political revenge. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time of the ICA’s publication, dismissed Gabbard’s claims as “fictional” and “an obvious attempt to rewrite history.”
But the controversy continues to grow. New whistleblowers, according to Gabbard, are now stepping forward from within the intelligence community, willing to testify that they were pressured or manipulated during the drafting of the 2017 ICA.
If these whistleblowers provide compelling testimony, it could further erode public confidence in the nation’s intelligence agencies and escalate demands for accountability.
For now, all eyes are on the Department of Justice, which must decide whether to act on Gabbard’s referral. While the Supreme Court ruling may offer a legal shield to Obama and his top aides, political pressure is mounting for an official response.
As Tulsi Gabbard puts it, “Immunity may protect them from jail, but it won’t protect them from the truth. The American people deserve to know how far this went, who authorized it, and what else they’ve been hiding.”
