Former congresswoman and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has once again thrown Washington into chaos with revelations from a new report that challenge years of political narratives about the 2016 election and Russian interference.
In a statement that has sent shockwaves through both political parties, Gabbard disclosed that Russia allegedly possessed highly damaging information about Hillary Clinton—emails from within the Democratic National Committee itself—calling into question her physical and mental fitness to serve as president.
Yet, Gabbard noted, Russia deliberately withheld the information during the election, planning instead to release it after what they believed would be her inevitable victory.
“One of the most significant pieces of evidence revealed in that report,” Gabbard said, “is that Russia had very damaging DNC emails relating specifically to Hillary Clinton’s physical and mental health, and internal discussions within the Democratic Party questioning whether she was capable of carrying out the duties of the presidency.”
The implications of that claim are enormous. For years, Democrats have portrayed Russian interference as a targeted effort to help Donald Trump win.
Gabbard’s statement turns that argument upside down, suggesting instead that Moscow acted out of expectation—not preference—and was preparing to exploit Clinton’s presidency for strategic advantage once she was in power.
According to the report referenced by Gabbard, Russian operatives obtained the emails months before the 2016 election but chose not to release them in September or October, when they could have swung voter sentiment decisively against Clinton.
“They understood that Hillary Clinton would likely be the inevitable President of the United States,” Gabbard said. “They didn’t think Trump could win, like a lot of other people.”
The Russians, she continued, were saving their leverage. “They were withholding this damaging information about Hillary Clinton and planning to release it in the days or weeks leading up to her expected inauguration in order to sow chaos within the United States.”
Gabbard’s words have reverberated through Washington, reviving debates about the true nature of Russia’s strategy in 2016 and casting a new light on years of partisan warfare over election interference.
If her claims are accurate, they suggest that Russia’s primary objective was not to elect Trump but to destabilize the United States regardless of who won.
That possibility would fundamentally alter how intelligence agencies and the public understand the events that dominated the political landscape for nearly a decade.
For Gabbard, who has long warned against the dangers of politicizing foreign policy, this revelation underscores her central argument: that the obsession with blaming Russia for Trump’s victory blinded the political establishment to deeper structural failures within the U.S. political system.
“The American people have been lied to for years,” she said. “The truth is that the establishment didn’t want to face the fact that their candidate was weak, compromised, and untrusted. So they blamed Russia. They blamed Trump. They blamed everyone except themselves.”
Gabbard’s decision to release the findings publicly has sparked both praise and fury. Supporters call her courageous for exposing what they view as the hypocrisy of Washington elites.
Critics accuse her of giving ammunition to Trump allies and undermining confidence in U.S. intelligence assessments. Yet the former congresswoman, known for her independent streak and refusal to toe party lines, seems unfazed by the backlash.
“Transparency is not treason,” she said. “The American people deserve to know the truth about what happened in 2016 and why our country has been divided ever since.”
The claim that Russia held damaging information about Clinton is not without precedent. Intelligence agencies have long known that Russian operatives infiltrated DNC systems and accessed troves of internal communications.
However, what Gabbard’s report adds is a timeline and motive—one that paints a far more calculated picture of Russian interference. By withholding damaging material and preparing to deploy it after the election, Russia could have sought to weaken the legitimacy of the incoming Clinton administration and deepen partisan divides. In that scenario, Trump’s unexpected victory disrupted their plan rather than fulfilled it.
The response from Democratic leadership was swift and defensive. Party operatives dismissed the report as a “distortion of fact” designed to distract from Trump’s alleged collusion with foreign actors.
Yet others privately admitted that Gabbard’s interpretation could explain inconsistencies in the established narrative. One senior strategist, speaking anonymously, conceded that “it’s not implausible that Russia had multiple scenarios ready—one for a Trump win, another for a Clinton win.”
The acknowledgment highlights how deeply entrenched and politically charged the debate over 2016 remains, even nearly a decade later.
Gabbard’s critics argue that her statements could embolden Trump’s defenders, many of whom have long insisted that the Russia investigation was a politically motivated witch hunt.
But others see her intervention as a necessary correction to years of misinformation. For Gabbard, the issue transcends partisan loyalties. “This isn’t about defending Trump,” she said.
“It’s about defending truth. The Democrats weaponized a false narrative for political power, and the consequences have been catastrophic. It divided our country, corrupted our institutions, and destroyed trust in our democracy.”
Her remarks also revive an uncomfortable question: what exactly did Russia know about Hillary Clinton’s condition and internal DNC discussions? If such emails exist, they could contain explosive revelations about how Democratic leaders viewed their own nominee in the months leading up to the election.
Allegations about Clinton’s health were a recurring theme during the 2016 campaign, amplified by viral videos showing her struggling to stand or coughing during rallies.
At the time, the Clinton campaign dismissed these as conspiracy theories. But Gabbard’s account suggests that DNC officials themselves privately raised similar concerns—concerns that Russia may have intercepted.
The revelation, if verified, would mark one of the most significant political deceptions in modern American history. It would mean that voters were not only misled by political spin but also manipulated by a campaign apparatus that knowingly concealed its candidate’s vulnerabilities while blaming foreign interference for its failures.
“If this information had come out before the election,” Gabbard said, “the American people could have made an informed decision. Instead, they were given propaganda.”
The broader implications extend beyond 2016. Gabbard’s comments challenge the bipartisan establishment’s entire approach to foreign interference, media narratives, and national security.
For years, Washington has been consumed by investigations, hearings, and partisan recriminations over supposed Russian influence operations. But if Gabbard’s account is correct, much of that effort may have been built on false assumptions.
The real objective of Moscow’s strategy was chaos, not candidate. By focusing on Trump, the political class may have inadvertently done Russia’s work for it—keeping Americans divided and distrustful of their own institutions.
Gabbard’s revelation also raises difficult questions for the media, which she accused of acting as “an extension of the Democratic Party.” During her 2020 presidential campaign, she frequently clashed with journalists who labeled her a Russian asset for questioning foreign policy orthodoxy.
Now, she says, those same outlets owe the public an apology. “For years, they smeared anyone who questioned the official story,” she said. “They called people traitors, conspiracy theorists, and extremists. But the real conspiracy was the cover-up.”
The timing of her statement is not coincidental. With another election cycle approaching and renewed talk of foreign interference, Gabbard appears determined to ensure that history does not repeat itself.
“If we don’t learn from what happened in 2016,” she warned, “we’re going to fall for the same lies again. The American people need to wake up and demand accountability from their leaders and their media.”
Even among Republicans, Gabbard’s remarks have struck a chord. Several lawmakers praised her courage in exposing what they described as “the inconvenient truth.”
One GOP senator called for hearings into the allegations raised by the report, arguing that Americans deserve transparency about what the intelligence community knew and when.
Meanwhile, progressive Democrats accused Gabbard of spreading disinformation—a charge she rejected as “the default reaction of people who fear the truth.”
Tulsi Gabbard has never shied away from controversy, but this revelation may be her most explosive yet. It challenges not only the Democratic Party’s narrative but also the credibility of Washington’s political and media establishment.
Her words cut to the heart of the country’s ongoing identity crisis — a struggle between truth and narrative, transparency and control. “We cannot build a democracy on lies,” she said. “We cannot restore unity by silencing dissent. The truth will come out, whether they like it or not.”
As reactions pour in and fact-checkers scramble to verify her claims, one thing is undeniable: Tulsi Gabbard has once again shattered the fragile equilibrium of American politics.
Her insistence on exposing uncomfortable truths has placed her at odds with both parties, yet it has also positioned her as one of the few voices willing to challenge the entrenched power structures of Washington.
Whether she is vindicated or vilified, her warning will echo long after the headlines fade. “This isn’t about me,” Gabbard concluded. “It’s about whether we, as a country, still have the courage to face the truth.”
