Can a single charge bring down the foundations of trust in American democracy? Tulsi Gabbard’s recent call for criminal prosecution of Barack Obama and some of his top national security leaders reignited a contentious storm over the 2016 election, the boundaries of presidential power, and the murky world of so-called “deep state” intrigues.
Gabbard, now Director of National Intelligence, minced no words. She claimed Obama and his team had orchestrated a “treasonous conspiracy” against Donald Trump’s win by “manufacturing intelligence” and relying on the discredited Steele dossier a document she claims was found to be defective. “No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to ensure nothing like this ever happens again,” Gabbard declared, per Politico.
The documents Gabbard has posted include redacted memos from Obama administration intelligence leaders and Russian cyber threat reports. Her report alleges that these individuals, among others such as James Clapper, John Brennan, and John Kerry, “suppressed” earlier conclusions that Russia lacked the capability or intent to hack the 2016 election. Instead, she argues, they advanced a narrative aided by the Steele dossier that Vladimir Putin directed a campaign to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.
But how true are the allegations? The scandal is over the Steele dossier, which was a lightning rod in the Russia investigation. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s own bipartisan investigation found that Russia did in fact conduct an aggressive effort to influence the election to elect Trump. However, while the committee flagged the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russian officials as a “grave” counterintelligence threat, it did not conclude that Trump’s team knowingly conspired with Moscow. The FBI’s reliance on the Steele dossier for surveillance warrants was sharply criticized for lacking verification, but the larger finding that Russia interfered remains unchallenged by most experts.
Gabbard’s allegations come as Trump’s base is demanding more transparency, specifically regarding the Epstein files a scandal that has only torched the flames of suspicion of government institutions. Trump himself has at different times denied that the incriminating Epstein files even exist or claimed that they were manufactured by officials in Obama’s administration.
These bombshell charges are more than political soap opera they’re part of a broader narrative about the so-called “deep state.” A far-off pipe dream, the idea of entrenched unelected bureaucrats scheming against elected leaders has gone mainstream, especially within Trump’s base. The term’s origins date back decades, but it’s only since 2017 that it’s become a cultural hot topic, with both left- and right-wing figures warning of backdoor control over national policy. As POLITICO Magazine notes, “there really is a kind of cabal that operates independently of elected officials in Washington even if it’s not quite what Trump or his conservative allies think it is.”
What then, when a former official or high-ranking official is accused of doing something wrong? The U.S. legal system is clear: there is no constitutional convention or law that protects former presidents from being prosecuted. As discussed in recent Supreme Court opinions and reaffirmed by legal scholars, official actions are at times immune, but unofficial actions are not. In fact, more than 40 percent of the world’s consolidated democracies have been accountable for former leaders since 2000, which proves that top-level accountability is not only possible but also the norm.
Still, there are political risks. Prosecutions could contribute to further polarization, and charges of partisanship or “weaponizing” the justice system already resonate with both parties. But still, the principle remains: no one is exempt from the law, and credible allegations no matter how politically motivated are worthy of investigation.
The theory of the deep state, however, is evolving. That which was once called a conspiracy theory has become the lens through which millions look at intelligence leak headlines, investigations, and celebrity-prosecutions. As Business Insider summarizes, the conspiracy theory that there is a shadow government does not exist in fact but it exists in the minds of Trump supporters. That’s just as much a threat to society.
As Gabbard’s allegations reverberate across Washington, they stand as a stern reminder of how thin the line is between transparency, national security, and the enduring need for public trust in democratic institutions.
