Have any official investigations been opened into Tulsi Gabbard's claims about Obama and Russia?
Executive summary
The Justice Department has opened at least one new investigative body — described in reporting as a “strike force” or task force — to examine the origins of the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment and possible misconduct tied to it after DNI Tulsi Gabbard publicly released declassified documents and made criminal referrals [1] [2] [3]. Media fact-checkers and multiple outlets report that longstanding investigations (Mueller, Senate Intelligence Committee, IG reviews, Durham) previously examined Russia’s 2016 interference and did not conclude an Obama‑led criminal conspiracy, and some outlets call Gabbard’s “coup” allegation misleading or baseless [4] [5] [6].
1. New DOJ body formed to review origins of the 2016 ICA — what’s public
Several news organizations report that the Department of Justice announced a new task force or “strike force” to investigate the origins of the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and any unlawful actions tied to its development or dissemination after Tulsi Gabbard released declassified materials and made criminal referrals [1] [2] [3]. The Times of India and The Guardian both describe DOJ forming a team specifically to probe claims stemming from the documents Gabbard released [2] [1]. DNI press releases assert criminal referrals and call for prosecutions of Obama‑era officials; those releases are the proximate cause of the DOJ announcement in news coverage [3] [7].
2. Long record of prior probes into Russia‑2016 — they did not produce fraud convictions of Obama officials
Fact‑checkers and mainstream outlets remind readers that the Mueller investigation, the Senate Intelligence Committee reports, Office of the Inspector General reviews and other probes spent years studying Russian interference and the handling of intelligence, and they did not produce findings that match Gabbard’s claim of an Obama‑directed “manufactured” ICA that was knowingly false or part of a treasonous conspiracy [4] [6] [5]. FactCheck.org notes that Gabbard’s framing overstates what the underlying documents establish and that earlier reviews credited by Special Counsel Durham recognized the contributions of Mueller and Senate probes to understanding Russian interference [4].
3. Gabbard’s release and claims: scope and assertions
DNI Tulsi Gabbard released a declassified House Intelligence Committee majority staff report and other records, and she publicly characterized them as “overwhelming evidence” that Obama and senior national security officials manufactured intelligence to undermine President Trump and launched a “years‑long coup” — language echoed in DNI press statements and in Gabbard’s public remarks [3] [7]. Gabbard’s releases include whistleblower records and HPSCI material that she says show missteps and politicization; her office has argued those materials justify referrals and a DOJ inquiry [8] [3].
4. Independent observers and intelligence veterans push back
Multiple outlets quote intelligence veterans and analysts who say Gabbard’s interpretation is flawed or politically motivated. The New York Times and The Guardian report that intelligence agencies and past Senate investigators reached different conclusions about Russian operations and that many experts see Gabbard’s effort as an attempt to rewrite the record [5] [1]. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact document specific misleading or unsupported claims in Gabbard’s narrative and note that existing investigations have not validated a criminal conspiracy by Obama‑era officials [4] [6].
5. What the DOJ task force does — and what reporting does not yet show
Reporting indicates the DOJ formed a team to investigate the ICA’s origins and possible unlawful conduct; outlets call it a “task force” or “strike force,” and DOJ statements were widely covered [1] [2]. Available sources do not provide a public DOJ report concluding wrongdoing by Obama officials nor do they show criminal charges resulting from the new task force at the time of these articles; further developments would depend on DOJ’s internal inquiry and its decisions about prosecutions [1] [2]. If you seek whether indictments or formal prosecutions followed, available sources do not mention those outcomes.
6. Competing political agendas shape coverage and interpretation
The documents Gabbard released and the DOJ’s response sit at the intersection of intelligence oversight and partisan politics. DNI releases and sympathetic outlets present the material as proof of a fabricator conspiracy [3] [7]. Opposing outlets, fact‑checkers and many intelligence veterans view the same materials as insufficient to overturn extensive earlier findings about Russian interference or to establish criminal conduct by Obama officials [4] [5] [6]. Reporters note that the timing and framing serve current political priorities, including attempts to shift attention from other controversies [1].
Limitations: this summary uses the provided reporting through late July–August 2025; it relies on media accounts of a DOJ task force and on DNI releases and does not include any DOJ indictment documents or later DOJ conclusions because those are not present in the supplied sources [1] [2] [3].