Which former Obama aides are under investigation and what are the allegations?
Executive summary
A Justice Department task force and grand jury probes were opened this year to examine allegations that Obama administration officials manufactured or politicized intelligence about Russian activity in 2016; the investigations target senior national-security figures named in public accusations, including John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice and Andrew McCabe, among others [1] [2] [3]. The claims originate largely from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s declassified materials and public statements accusing a “treasonous conspiracy,” while press accounts and past reviews note earlier probes found no criminal conspiracy [1] [4] [3] [5].
1. Who is reported to be under investigation — names and roles
Reporting and official releases identify a set of senior Obama-era national security and law‑enforcement officials as focal points of the current inquiries: CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Council staff such as Susan Rice, and FBI official Andrew McCabe [1] [2]. News outlets and the DNI press documents cite those names repeatedly as being implicated by the theory Gabbard released [1] [2].
2. What prosecutors are doing now
Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered prosecutors to open grand jury inquiries and a Department of Justice task force to examine the allegations after DNI Tulsi Gabbard publicly released documents and charged Obama officials with manufacturing an intelligence product in late 2016 [3] [6]. Reuters and NBC report that a grand jury was convened and that the DOJ formed investigative teams to pursue the claims [7] [3].
3. The central allegation: “manufactured” intelligence and a “years‑long coup”
DNI Gabbard’s public materials assert that senior Obama officials altered or suppressed intelligence assessments in December 2016 — including a President’s Daily Brief — and then pushed a different Intelligence Community Assessment that overstated or misrepresented Russian actions, which she characterizes as part of a “treasonous conspiracy” to undermine President Trump [1] [2] [4]. That framing has been seized upon by the White House and allies as justification for criminal referrals [8] [9].
4. What prior investigations found — conflicting context
Multiple past reviews and special counsels are cited in coverage as having examined related questions and not finding criminal conspiracy by Obama officials. The Reuters and NBC dispatches note that earlier probes, including the Durham inquiry, did not conclude there was a criminal plot by Obama aides to fabricate intelligence [7] [3]. FactCheck and other analysts emphasize that Gabbard’s memo reinterprets documents and has been criticized as misleading; it does not overturn the core findings of prior probes that Russian interference occurred and that no collusive conspiracy among senior Obama officials was proven [5] [6].
5. Competing interpretations and political context
Coverage signals two clear competing narratives: Gabbard and Trump allies argue declassified documents show deliberate manipulation of intelligence and seek criminal accountability [1] [4]. Critics — Democrats, some former intelligence officials, and independent fact‑checkers cited in reporting — say the new materials reflect longstanding, nuanced debates about classification, wording and analytic judgments, not proof of criminal conduct; they call the move politically motivated and note prior inquiries found no basis for prosecutions [5] [6] [3].
6. Limits of available reporting and what is not yet shown
Available sources do not present an indictment or public charging document proving criminal conduct by any named Obama official; they record only that grand juries and DOJ teams have been formed and that public allegations stem mainly from Gabbard’s declassified materials and the administration’s political embrace of them [3] [1] [6]. Previous oversight reports and special‑counsel work are cited as not having established a criminal conspiracy, and fact‑checking organizations say Gabbard’s claims conflate distinct intelligence products [5] [7].
7. Why this matters — institutional trust and legal thresholds
The unfolding probes raise questions about how political actors use declassification and prosecutions to pursue rivals; news reports warn the inquiries occur amid administration efforts to shift attention from other controversies [8] [3]. Criminal prosecution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of intent and illegal action — a standard earlier inquiries did not meet, according to reporting — so the fact that a grand jury is empaneled does not by itself confirm wrongdoing [7] [5].
8. Bottom line for readers
The investigations currently center on high‑profile Obama‑era intelligence and FBI officials (John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe are named in public materials) and allege deliberate manufacture or politicization of 2016 intelligence; those allegations rest chiefly on DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s declassified documents and public statements, and the Justice Department has opened grand jury and task‑force inquiries [1] [3]. At the same time, earlier independent reviews and journalists cited in the record found no criminal conspiracy, and available reporting does not yet show indictments or direct proof of the criminal allegations [5] [7].