Did Obama start russiagate?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Newly declassified documents and statements from current DNI Tulsi Gabbard assert Obama-era officials ordered and shaped the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment and related messaging about Russian interference; Gabbard’s releases claim a December 2016 “POTUS tasking” and a Presidential Daily Brief that initially said no vote-counting impact [1]. Critics and multiple news outlets say those materials do not prove a criminal “manufacturing” of Russiagate or that President Obama “started” a hoax; bipartisan and independent probes over the years reached mixed findings about analytic process versus the underlying conclusion that Russia interfered [2] [3].
1. What the new DNI materials say and the core allegation
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence under Tulsi Gabbard released documents and a House Intelligence Committee oversight memo alleging that after a December 9, 2016 Situation Room meeting Obama’s team directed the Intelligence Community to produce a new assessment “per the President’s request,” and that a December 8, 2016 Presidential Daily Brief initially assessed Russian activity had not altered vote counts [1]. Gabbard and allied congressional Republicans now characterize those steps as evidence the Obama administration “manufactured and politicized” intelligence to seed what they call Russiagate [4] [1].
2. What independent and bipartisan reviews found earlier
Multiple prior investigations examined Russian interference and the U.S. response. A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report documented the Obama administration’s decisions about warning the public and how cyber and geopolitical threats were handled, but it did not conclude the administration fabricated interference; it found the government was constrained and made trade‑offs about disclosure [3]. Earlier probes by DOJ and inspectors general examined analytic process and investigative openings; those reports identified errors and disputed uses of certain reporting (see [9] summary of Durham and other findings), but they did not produce a consensus that the entire phenomenon was manufactured.
3. Media and national-security outlets push back on “conspiracy” framing
Mainstream outlets and national-security analysts say the declassified Gabbard material does not overturn the fundamental finding that Russia interfered in 2016 and that the new documents provide limited evidence of criminal conduct by Obama or senior officials. Axios noted the declassified report derives from a Republican-drafted House Intelligence Committee probe that questioned analytic judgments but did not contradict the broader finding that Russia attempted to harm Hillary Clinton’s campaign, nor provide evidence of criminality by Obama-era officials [2]. Defense One flagged that Gabbard’s memo included claims about what Obama officials “said” that public records contradict [5].
4. Why proponents say Obama “started” Russiagate
Supporters of the view that Obama initiated Russiagate point to the December 2016 meeting, subsequent emails instructing an “assessment per the President’s request,” and internal debate over analytic language and sources [1]. Republican lawmakers including Senators Graham and Cornyn have called for special counsel probes, citing declassified PDBs and timeline claims that certain pre-Jan. 6, 2017 assessments differed from later public IC products [6] [7].
5. Where the evidence is contested and limits of current reporting
Sources supplied show competing interpretations of the same documents: Gabbard’s team reads the timeline as evidence of deliberate politicization [1], while contemporaneous reporting and prior reviews documented that leaders asked for consolidated assessments and grappled with sensitive intelligence disclosure choices — not necessarily criminal conspiracy [8] [3]. RealClearInvestigations and other outlets report new internal reviews raising questions about testimony and dossier use, but those accounts do not uniformly assert a definitive, single orchestrated plot begun by Obama [9]. Available sources do not mention an authenticated legal finding that Obama “started” a criminal Russiagate plot.
6. Political context and incentives shaping narratives
This debate is unfolding amid intense political incentives: Republican leaders and conservative outlets push claims that expand into calls for prosecutions and impeachment of Obama [6] [10], while mainstream outlets caution against equating procedural disagreements about assessment language with proof of a crime [2]. The DNI’s current posture and congressional actors seeking special counsels reflect a political motive to revisit 2016 intelligence handling, and some sources explicitly trace media and partisan actors amplifying one interpretation over alternatives [2] [11].
7. Bottom line for readers
Documents now public show that Obama administration officials ordered and reviewed consolidated intelligence on Russian activity in late 2016 and that analysts debated language and sources — facts underscored by both Gabbard’s releases and prior Senate work [1] [3]. Whether that amounts to having “started Russiagate” as a manufactured, criminal conspiracy is disputed: proponents cite tasking emails and PDB drafts as proof [1], while other reporting and prior bipartisan inquiries say those materials do not establish criminality or negate the large body of evidence that Russia interfered [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention a court or inspector-general adjudication definitively concluding Obama initiated a criminal plot.