Advertisement
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is facing significant criticism from both current and former Trump administration officials over her recent claims denying Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Gabbard, who was controversially appointed to lead the intelligence community, has recently suggested that reports of Russian meddling were politically motivated fabrications created by the Obama administration to discredit Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton.
In her public statements, Gabbard dismissed years of intelligence findings, arguing that the narrative of Russian interference was manufactured to delegitimise Trump’s win. However, newly leaked emails appear to show that Gabbard’s own office instructed staffers to alter intelligence reports to fit this narrative, raising further concerns about her credibility and motives.
These assertions directly contradict statements made by several officials who served under Trump. Notably, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who also served as Director of National Intelligence, made it clear during his 2020 Senate confirmation hearing that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election. Ratcliffe stated unequivocally: “My views are that Russia meddled in or interfered with active measures in 2016. They interfered in 2018. They will attempt to do so in 2020. They have a goal of sowing discord, and they have been successful in sowing discord.”
His comments reflect the overwhelming consensus within the intelligence community, a position reaffirmed by multiple investigations, including those led by Republican lawmakers.
In 2020, the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Republican Senator Marco Rubio, released a detailed report confirming that the Russian government, under President Vladimir Putin’s orders, carried out a sweeping effort to influence the 2016 U.S. election. The report stated that Russian intelligence operatives hacked Democratic Party emails and strategically released them to damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign and boost Trump’s chances of winning.
Additionally, the House Intelligence Committee issued its own findings in 2018, also led by Republicans. The report acknowledged that Russia had begun an active influence campaign in 2015, aimed at creating division within American society and eroding trust in democratic institutions.
Former Congressman Mike Waltz, a Republican from Florida and Trump’s current nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has also spoken out about the issue. Waltz emphasized that while Trump has repeatedly denied collusion, that is not the same as denying interference. He said, “Russia was attacking our constitutional system and our electoral system. That should concern everyone, regardless of party.”
Despite the mounting evidence from within her own political circle, Gabbard’s remarks downplay this broader interference campaign. She has cited a specific document that focused narrowly on vote counting and election infrastructure, which concluded there was no evidence of votes being changed, but ignored the wider information warfare and social media manipulation that multiple investigations confirmed.
Adding to the controversy, just days before Gabbard’s comments, Ratcliffe had released a new report affirming the original intelligence community assessment. He praised the report’s methodology and analytical rigour, further validating the claims that Russia sought to interfere in the election and help Trump.
Gabbard’s decision to discredit these findings has sparked renewed debate not only about her role as Director of National Intelligence but also about the politicization of national security. As more Trump-era officials speak out in opposition to her claims, the divide within the former president’s own orbit is becoming harder to ignore, and questions about Gabbard’s fitness for the position are growing louder.