• Tulsi Gabbard plans to refer Obama-era officials to the DOJ. She alleges they politicized intelligence to justify the 2016 FBI Trump-Russia probe.
• The move revives deep political divisions. In fact, Democrats accuse Gabbard of trying to rewrite history and undermine trust in U.S. intelligence.
• Speculation centers on former CIA Director Brennan and FBI Director Comey, though no specific individuals have been officially named.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard shook Washington on Friday with a bold announcement. Her statement could reignite one of the most divisive political controversies in recent memory. Gabbard revealed she is preparing a criminal referral to the Justice Department involving top officials from the Obama administration. At the heart of her claim is the belief that intelligence about Russian interference in the 2016 election was manipulated. She argues it was done to justify launching an FBI investigation into Donald Trump’s campaign.

In her statement, Gabbard accused senior Obama-era intelligence officials of “manufacturing and politicizing” reports. This occurred in the run-up to the FBI’s Russia probe. Also, she made it clear she intends to hold them accountable.

“I’m turning over all documents to the DOJ for criminal referral,” she said on social media. However, she did not name individuals. Her language left no doubt she believes the original intelligence assessment was compromised to serve a political agenda.

A Political Shot Across the Bow

Gabbard’s criminal referral comes at a time when trust in America’s institutions remains fragile. Her decision to declassify documents related to the 2016 intelligence report is widely seen as a challenge. Specifically, it challenges the official narrative that Russia interfered in the election to boost Trump’s chances. That conclusion was affirmed by multiple agencies back in 2017. It was later supported by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in 2020.

But for Gabbard—and a growing number of critics—those findings were part of a much broader political operation. This operation began under the Obama administration and carried deep consequences for the Trump presidency.

Her supporters argue that Gabbard’s move is long overdue and represents a push for accountability after years of partisan investigations. “This isn’t about relitigating the past—it’s about restoring integrity,” said one conservative commentator. “People deserve to know how and why the intelligence was shaped.”

Brennan and Comey in the Spotlight Again

Though Gabbard didn’t name names, speculation immediately turned to familiar figures: former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey. Both have long been accused by Trump allies of steering intelligence findings. Their actions allegedly laid the groundwork for the FBI’s probe into possible Trump-Russia collusion.

According to reports earlier this month, Brennan and Comey are already under FBI scrutiny. They are being investigated for allegedly making false statements to Congress. That investigation reportedly stemmed from a referral by current CIA Director John Ratcliffe. He, like Gabbard, has questioned the 2017 assessment’s credibility.

Gabbard’s decision to jump into the fray now has poured gasoline on an already heated topic. Furthermore, it could have far-reaching implications for how intelligence work is conducted in the future.

Fierce Blowback from Democrats

Not surprisingly, Democrats have come out swinging. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, condemned Gabbard’s move. He views it as an effort to distort well-documented facts.

“The Senate Intelligence Committee reviewed this issue thoroughly, examining hundreds of thousands of documents,” Warner said in a statement. “We reached a unanimous conclusion: Russia interfered in 2016 to benefit Trump. This latest stunt is just another attempt to rewrite history and undermine our intelligence agencies.”

Other Democrats echoed Warner’s criticism, warning that Gabbard’s actions could damage public trust in national security institutions. “This is not leadership—it’s sabotage,” one House Democrat said privately. “It plays directly into the hands of those who want to see America divided and distracted.”

Public Reaction Splits Along Predictable Lines

As news of Gabbard’s criminal referral spread, social media lit up with reactions that underscored the country’s deep political divide.

Conservatives praised Gabbard’s move as brave and necessary. They call it a long-overdue reckoning with what they view as politically motivated behavior within the intelligence community. “Tulsi is doing what no one else has had the courage to do—stand up to the deep state,” one user posted on X (formerly Twitter).

On the other side, progressives accused her of grandstanding and risking national security for political theater. “This isn’t about transparency—it’s about distraction,” another user wrote. “She’s creating doubt for political gain.”

Even among centrists, there was concern that yet another chapter in the long-running 2016 saga could further polarize the nation. “We’re stuck in a loop,” said a political analyst on CNN. “Every time we try to move on, something drags us back.”

What’s Next for the DOJ?

The Department of Justice has not commented on Gabbard’s referral or the documents she turned over. A criminal referral doesn’t obligate the DOJ to open an investigation or press charges. Also, it’s not clear whether Gabbard has included any specific evidence of wrongdoing.

But her announcement could pressure the department to respond. This is especially true if additional intelligence is declassified in the coming weeks. Legal experts are divided on whether the referral will result in any action. However, they agree that politically, it’s a powerful statement.

“Even if nothing comes of it legally, this move by Gabbard is a message,” said a former federal prosecutor. “She’s saying the intelligence community doesn’t get a free pass.”