Tulsi Gabbard Exposes Deep State Cover-Up in Trump-Russia Collusion Scandal

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has ignited a political firestorm with explosive claims that elements within the U.S. intelligence community actively worked to suppress evidence exonerating President Donald Trump from allegations of collusion with Russia.

In a bold interview on "Jesse Watters Primetime," Gabbard alleged that entrenched bureaucrats—whom she labeled as “deep state actors”—deliberately obstructed efforts to bring the truth to light, and that a new Department of Justice “strike force” has now been formed to investigate the damning evidence her office has uncovered.

The former Hawaii congresswoman, who took the reins as Director of National Intelligence under President Trump’s second administration, has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of what she calls a “years-long coup” orchestrated by officials loyal to former President Barack Obama.

Gabbard’s claims center on the assertion that senior Obama-era intelligence officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, manufactured a narrative of Russian interference in the 2016 election to delegitimize Trump’s presidency before it even began.

“There are a lot of deep state actors still here within Washington,” Gabbard said. “President Trump wants us to find the truth. I want to find that truth. The American people deserve the truth, and they deserve accountability.”

Gabbard announced that the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, has formed a strike force specifically tasked with investigating the intelligence findings her team has gathered.

According to Gabbard, this strike force will play a pivotal role in combing through more than 100 declassified documents her office has released that appear to contradict the official narrative about Russian influence on the 2016 election.

“For months preceding the 2016 election, the Intelligence Community shared a consensus view: Russia lacked the intent and capability to hack U.S. elections,” Gabbard said, referencing internal memos and assessments that predated Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton. “But weeks after President Trump’s historic 2016 victory… everything changed.”

Gabbard’s timeline suggests that the narrative shift was not driven by new intelligence, but rather by political pressure. She alleges that President Obama directly ordered a new intelligence assessment to be drafted post-election, one that emphasized Russian election meddling despite it contradicting previous assessments issued by the very same agencies.

“These findings were not based on evolving intelligence,” she said, “they were shaped to justify a political objective: the subversion of a duly elected president.”

The implications of Gabbard’s revelations are far-reaching. Her accusations, if substantiated, suggest that the collusion narrative—used to justify years of investigations, public distrust, and media frenzy—was knowingly fabricated by political actors in intelligence roles.

Trump has responded to the revelations with his usual blunt force, accusing Barack Obama of treason and reposting an AI-generated video depicting Obama being arrested in the Oval Office.

The video, while controversial, symbolizes the depth of fury among Trump supporters who believe the former president was targeted by an elaborate government conspiracy.

While Gabbard’s claims have been met with enthusiasm from conservative circles, they have also triggered a wave of denials from former Obama officials and mainstream media outlets.

A spokesperson for Obama called the allegations “outrageous” and “bizarre,” insisting that nothing in the newly released documents invalidates the consensus that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election.

“Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes,” the statement read. “These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.”

However, that same Senate report—while confirming Russian interference efforts—also concluded that no votes were changed, and no direct collusion between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government was found.

Rubio, now Secretary of State, issued a statement at the time condemning Russian meddling but also criticized the FBI for its heavy reliance on the discredited Steele dossier, a document funded by the Clinton campaign and widely viewed as flawed.

“What the Committee did find, however, is very troubling,” Rubio wrote. “We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling… but no evidence that then-candidate Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government.”

Despite this nuanced position, Gabbard argues that even the Senate Intelligence Committee failed to confront the full extent of the intelligence community’s manipulation.

She insists that the key difference lies in intent: while Russia may have engaged in influence operations, senior U.S. intelligence officials twisted that reality into a full-blown conspiracy theory to cripple a political opponent.

Ned Price, a former National Security Council official under Obama, also pushed back against Gabbard’s narrative in an op-ed, accusing her of “conspiratorial fiction” and intentionally blurring the line between “hacking” and “influence.”

Gabbard, however, has not backed down. She maintains that terms were manipulated to sow confusion and justification for political action. “The truth is, there was no evidence of Russian ‘hacking’ of election systems,” she said.

“And yet, that term was used interchangeably with ‘influence’ to justify a full-blown investigation that consumed the nation for years.”

In her criminal referral to the DOJ, Gabbard alleges that multiple federal officials knowingly misled Congress and the American people by presenting intelligence assessments as unbiased when they were, in fact, politically engineered.

The newly-formed DOJ strike force will now investigate whether any criminal conduct occurred in the drafting, dissemination, or promotion of those assessments.

Critics worry that Gabbard’s actions are part of a broader campaign to rewrite the historical record of the Trump presidency. They argue that her declassified documents, while offering important insights, do not invalidate the broader concerns about Russian interference or the intelligence community’s responsibility to examine potential foreign threats.

Yet for many Americans—especially those disillusioned by years of media obsession with the Russia investigation—the revelations offer a compelling counter-narrative.

Gabbard’s tenure as DNI has so far been marked by transparency initiatives and aggressive attempts to de-politicize the intelligence community. Her supporters argue that her background as a former Democrat turned independent truth-seeker uniquely positions her to bridge ideological divides and expose systemic corruption.

Whether or not the DOJ’s strike force produces prosecutable findings, the public battle over the meaning and legacy of the Russia collusion narrative is once again front and center.

The media’s response to Gabbard has been mixed. Conservative outlets have heralded her as a whistleblower and patriot, while establishment commentators have accused her of political grandstanding. But as with so many other political battles in recent years, the fight over facts has given way to competing realities.

What remains clear is that Gabbard’s claims will fuel continued debate about the role of intelligence agencies in domestic politics, the line between influence and interference, and the true origins of one of the most divisive scandals in modern American history.

For now, Gabbard says she’s not done. “We have more coming,” she warned. “And we will not stop until the American people get the answers they deserve.”