This unprecedented moment raises a pressing question: can a former US president actually face prosecution for actions taken while in office? And what are the legal and political implications of such a move?
The Gabbard documents: What do they show?
At the heart of the controversy are intelligence documents recently declassified by Tulsi Gabbard, who now heads the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Gabbard’s disclosures allege that Obama-era officials — specifically James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, Susan Rice, and Andrew McCabe –deliberately distorted or suppressed intelligence to frame a narrative of Russian election interference that would damage Trump.
Gabbard argued that this manipulation of intelligence was not only unethical but possibly criminal, referring to it as a “treasonous conspiracy”. According to her statements, certain intelligence reports that cleared the Trump campaign of collusion were deliberately downplayed or ignored, while narratives emphasising Russian interference were selectively elevated. Importantly, the materials do not show that votes were altered or that Obama directly interfered in vote counts. Rather, they appear to suggest a pattern of politically motivated intelligence shaping which is serious, but far from the clear-cut criminal behaviour that would normally prompt a DOJ indictment.
Trump’s escalation
Capitalising on the released documents, Trump quickly amplified the narrative. He accused Obama of treason and insisted that the DOJ open an investigation. Trump even went so far as to post an AI-generated video showing the FBI arresting Obama in the Oval Office, a move that was widely condemned as inflammatory and reckless. While Obama’s office rarely responds to Trump’s ongoing attacks, the former president issued a statement calling the accusations “bizarre,” “ridiculous,” and “a weak attempt at distraction”. The statement emphasised the unprecedented nature of the accusation and suggested it was designed to distract from Trump’s own mounting legal and political troubles.Nevertheless, Trump’s message resonated with his base. Conservative media and MAGA-aligned lawmakers echoed his call for accountability, with several suggesting that the disclosures represent the biggest scandal in American history.Will the DOJ prosecute Obama?
Despite the political firestorm, the likelihood that Obama will face criminal prosecution remains extremely slim. The evidence currently available may not establish that Obama committed a prosecutable offence. The documents suggest internal disagreements and potentially politicised decision-making, but not necessarily criminal behaviour. Under US law, proving treason or criminal conspiracy requires evidence of intent, coordination and direct action to break the law.
Also, there is the matter of precedent and prosecutorial norms. No former US president has ever been prosecuted for actions taken while in office unless there was incontrovertible proof of criminal conduct. Even in high-profile cases like Watergate, those involved were either pardoned or avoided criminal charges through plea deals and immunity arrangements. While it is possible that the DOJ may quietly review the Gabbard disclosures, the standard for launching a formal criminal case against a former president is extraordinarily high. Without compelling evidence, it’s unlikely that Attorney General Merrick Garland would take the risk of igniting a constitutional crisis.
Gabbard has promised more disclosures in the coming weeks. If new documents emerge that contain stronger evidence of deliberate falsification or political manipulation, especially if Obama is directly implicated, then the DOJ could face renewed pressure to act.
Political fallout
Politically, the allegations have already become a powerful tool for Trump and his allies, who are using the narrative to galvanise support and frame the 2016 Russia investigation as a calculated attack. For Democrats, however, the accusations are viewed largely as a diversion tactic, aimed at deflecting attention from Trump’s own troubles. Within the intelligence community, Gabbard’s unilateral declassification has raised alarm, with critics arguing that it undermines institutional credibility and could damage relationships with allied intelligence services. These concerns have been echoed by figures such as Senator Mark Warner, who warned that such politicisation erodes the foundational trust that intelligence-sharing depends on.
While the legal pathway seems narrow, the political implications are far-reaching. Trump and his allies have seized on the moment to reframe the Russia investigation as a political weapon wielded by Obama to undermine the peaceful transfer of power. In their view, the disclosures prove that the 2016 Russia investigation was a “hoax” built on fabricated intelligence and partisan motives. This can help Trump regain support of many of those among MAGA who have been disppointed by the Trump adminsitration’s handling of Epstein files.
Gabbard’s role in all of this cannot be overstated. Once a Democratic congresswoman known for her anti-establishment stance, she has become a central figure in reshaping how intelligence is handled in the executive branch. Critics say she is politicising national security, while supporters argue she is exposing long-standing corruption.
