A bombshell development has emerged in the ongoing unraveling of the now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative, with former National Security Advisor John Bolton allegedly implicated in a cover-up tied to a classified intelligence memo.
The memo reportedly contained information that contradicted key elements of the collusion theory—yet, according to investigative journalist Paul Sperry, Bolton deliberately withheld the contents from President Donald Trump during his time in office, choosing instead to trust the discredited intelligence promoted by then-CIA Director John Brennan.
The revelations have sent shockwaves through both political and intelligence circles. According to Sperry’s report for RealClear Investigations, Bolton received the explosive memo summarizing internal CIA objections to Brennan’s intelligence assessments.
Rather than briefing the president, however, Bolton allegedly locked the document away inside a National Security Council (NSC) safe, effectively burying evidence that could have dismantled the “Russian collusion” narrative years earlier. Sperry cited anonymous sources familiar with NSC operations and the internal decision-making process at the time.
John Bolton, a long-standing neoconservative figure and one of Trump’s more hawkish appointees, has since become one of the former president’s fiercest critics. But his alleged decision to withhold the memo has now placed him at the center of a growing conspiracy scandal, as new declassified documents begin to paint a broader picture of institutional manipulation, internal dissent, and top-level cover-up.
The report in question was declassified by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who recently shocked Washington with her findings. The memo she released reveals that Brennan signed off on a CIA analysis that overstated Russia’s intent and influence in the 2016 election—an assessment used as a foundation for launching the Trump-Russia collusion investigation.
Gabbard’s team uncovered that the memo contradicted the views of multiple CIA analysts, some of whom had signed statements saying Russia’s interference was limited in scope and did not decisively benefit Trump. These views, however, were excluded from the official intelligence community assessment (ICA) that was presented to Congress and the public.
Even more stunning is the claim that Russian operatives were actually hoping for a Hillary Clinton victory, believing they had compromising material on her that could be used to manipulate her administration post-election.
That intelligence, according to the memo, was sidelined in favor of the politically explosive claim that Russia was actively aiding Trump—despite an internal consensus among several CIA officers that such a claim lacked definitive support.
Bolton has since attempted to downplay the memo and Director Gabbard’s revelations. In a recent interview on NewsNation’s “On Balance,” Bolton dismissed the claims as speculative.
“She’s strung together a series of things that aren’t necessarily related,” Bolton said. “She’s exaggerated what actual congressional reports have said, she’s imagined evidence that doesn’t exist.”
He added, “If anybody really gets into it, it collapses pretty quickly.”
But Gabbard has remained firm. Since releasing the memo, she has reiterated her belief that top officials from the Obama administration—including Brennan, former DNI James Clapper, and former FBI Director James Comey—were part of a coordinated effort to mislead the public and weaponize the intelligence community against Trump. In her own words, the release was “an attempt to restore integrity to institutions that have been deeply compromised.”
President Trump wasted no time responding to the explosive findings. Speaking to reporters Tuesday, the former president labeled the entire affair as treason, accusing former President Barack Obama and his senior leadership team of orchestrating the scandal from inside the Oval Office.
“Based on what I read, and I read pretty much what you read, it would be President Obama. He started it,” Trump said. “And [then-Vice President Joe] Biden was there with him, and Comey was there, and Clapper, the whole group was there. Brennan, they were all there in a room, right here, this was the room.”
He continued, “If you look at those papers, they have him stone-cold, and it was President Obama. It wasn’t lots of people all over the place, it was them, too. But the leader of the gang was President Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, have you heard of him?”
Trump then declared, “He’s guilty, it’s not a question. This was treason. This was every word you can think of.”
The implications of the unfolding scandal are vast. According to congressional sources, a new round of investigations may soon be launched into the events surrounding the 2016 ICA, including the roles of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey.
The newly declassified memo is now being reviewed by oversight committees in both chambers of Congress, with lawmakers expressing concern about the suppression of dissenting views within the intelligence community.
One Republican staffer familiar with the documents said, “This is worse than anything we thought. Not only did Brennan push a false narrative, but senior figures like Bolton apparently aided in keeping the truth from the President himself.”
Multiple outlets have now confirmed that FBI investigators are reviewing congressional testimony given by Brennan and Comey in 2020. That testimony, critics say, misrepresented the scope and confidence levels of intelligence community assessments related to Russian election interference.
If found to be intentionally misleading, the testimony could lead to perjury charges—though political observers note that prosecutions of high-ranking officials are rare and fraught with complications.
The memo also fuels longstanding concerns about the politicization of intelligence operations. From the moment the Russia collusion narrative entered public discourse, many in Trump’s orbit expressed skepticism about the motivations behind the investigation.
Trump himself repeatedly referred to the Mueller probe and associated investigations as a “witch hunt,” alleging that deep-state actors within the government were targeting him based on political bias rather than evidence.
Gabbard’s memo and Sperry’s reporting now appear to lend weight to those accusations. If Bolton indeed chose not to brief Trump on evidence that undermined the entire premise of the Russia probe, the former National Security Advisor’s actions could be seen as a direct betrayal—not only of Trump, but of the public’s right to know the truth.
The controversy also comes amid broader political turmoil as Trump mounts another presidential campaign and vows to reform intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
The former president has made clear that if reelected, he intends to “clean house” at agencies like the CIA, FBI, and DOJ—agencies he has accused of acting as extensions of the Democratic Party rather than as neutral enforcers of the law.
As of now, neither Brennan nor Comey has responded to the allegations arising from the newly released memo. Clapper, when reached for comment by several outlets, dismissed the memo as a “rehash of old talking points,” but declined to elaborate further. Bolton, for his part, continues to defend his record and insists that Gabbard’s findings are misleading.
Yet the backlash is growing. Several Republican lawmakers have called for a special counsel to investigate the intelligence community’s handling of the 2016 ICA, and some have suggested that Bolton be subpoenaed to testify under oath about his knowledge of the memo and why it was not shared with the White House.
Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) called the report “deeply disturbing,” adding, “We need to know who knew what, and when—and why they chose to hide it.”
Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY), a longtime Trump ally, echoed those concerns: “This is exactly why Americans have lost trust in their institutions. If top officials are covering up evidence and misleading the public, there must be consequences.”
As the fallout from these revelations continues to unfold, one thing is increasingly clear: the Russia collusion narrative, long held up as the defining scandal of the Trump era, is collapsing under the weight of new evidence.
What was once seen as settled fact is now being exposed as an orchestrated effort—one that involved not only intelligence officials, but also political appointees at the highest levels of government.
Whether accountability follows remains to be seen. But with Trump on the offensive, and Gabbard’s memo shedding new light on old lies, the reckoning may only just be beginning.
