Obama responds after President Trump accuses him of "treason" over Russia investigation
- Replies 0
Former President Barack Obama’s office has issued a rare public response following renewed accusations from President Donald Trump, who claimed this week that Obama and members of his administration committed “treason” in connection to the 2016 Russia investigation.
Speaking during a meeting with the President of the Philippines, Trump described Obama as “the leader of the gang” and alleged that the former president had orchestrated efforts to undermine him.
“He’s guilty... This was treason,” Trump said.
The remarks came shortly after a report from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was released, which revisited claims about the scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
In response, Obama’s spokesperson called the accusations “outrageous” and described them as “a weak attempt at distraction.”
Obama has typically refrained from commenting on Trump’s public criticisms, but in this instance, his office issued a formal statement:
“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.”
In a separate statement, spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush added:
“Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.”
“These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.”
The comments from both Trump and Gabbard followed the release of a new report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The report highlighted internal emails from the Obama administration suggesting that officials had concluded Moscow had not altered state election systems to benefit Trump.
Trump and his allies interpreted the report as evidence that the original claims of Russian interference had been exaggerated or politically motivated.
However, Obama administration officials have consistently stated that their concerns centered on other types of interference.
These included the unauthorized release of Democratic emails, as well as foreign influence campaigns using social media to shape public opinion and create division during the election.
The term “treason” is defined in Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution as:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Historically, treason has been prosecuted sparingly in the United States.
Over the country’s history, there have been around 40 federal prosecutions for treason, with few resulting in convictions.
The bar for conviction is intentionally high, requiring clear and direct evidence of betrayal.
There is no public evidence that Obama engaged in any criminal conduct in relation to the Russia investigation.
Additionally, a Supreme Court ruling issued in 2023 affirmed that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for official acts taken during their time in office.
Legal analysts point to this decision as a significant barrier to any potential prosecution of Obama or others who served in his administration.
The accusations have drawn a wide range of reactions.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson stated during a CBS interview:
“The people who are being called out now were involved in a scheme... it was a shameless false set of accusations and yet they perpetuated a lie on the American people. And they looked right into the camera and just lied. And they knew what they were up to the whole time. So there must be accountability for that.”
DNI Tulsi Gabbard, speaking to Fox News, commented: “It’s the art of deflection coming from former President Obama, as well as his friends who are still in Congress today.”
As of now, the Department of Justice has not launched any formal investigation.
Speaker Johnson has indicated he would support efforts to subpoena Obama for further questioning.
There is no indication of a DOJ inquiry at this time, but calls for further investigation may continue in some political circles.
The discussion remains highly polarized, with strong views on both sides.
For now, the matter remains in the realm of public and political discourse rather than legal proceedings.
Read next: Biden’s cancer diagnosis sparks questions about screening and care—President Trump also responds
What do you think? Do you see these accusations as a legitimate concern—or more political theater? Have you seen similar moments in American history, and how did they play out? How do you think leaders on both sides should handle disputes of this scale?
Share your thoughts with us. Let’s keep the conversation respectful and thoughtful.
Speaking during a meeting with the President of the Philippines, Trump described Obama as “the leader of the gang” and alleged that the former president had orchestrated efforts to undermine him.
“He’s guilty... This was treason,” Trump said.
The remarks came shortly after a report from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was released, which revisited claims about the scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
In response, Obama’s spokesperson called the accusations “outrageous” and described them as “a weak attempt at distraction.”
The debate over Russian interference and presidential accountability continues to shape political discourse in 2025. Image source: YouTube / Forbes Breaking News.
Obama’s office: “These bizarre allegations… merit a response”
Obama has typically refrained from commenting on Trump’s public criticisms, but in this instance, his office issued a formal statement:
“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.”
In a separate statement, spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush added:
“Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.”
“These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.”
Also read: Strange height difference at NATO Summit fuels wild Trump conspiracy theories
What triggered the renewed allegations?
The comments from both Trump and Gabbard followed the release of a new report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The report highlighted internal emails from the Obama administration suggesting that officials had concluded Moscow had not altered state election systems to benefit Trump.
Trump and his allies interpreted the report as evidence that the original claims of Russian interference had been exaggerated or politically motivated.
However, Obama administration officials have consistently stated that their concerns centered on other types of interference.
These included the unauthorized release of Democratic emails, as well as foreign influence campaigns using social media to shape public opinion and create division during the election.
Also read: Money isn’t everything: Michelle Obama talks dating and financial stability
Understanding the legal definition of treason
The term “treason” is defined in Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution as:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Historically, treason has been prosecuted sparingly in the United States.
Over the country’s history, there have been around 40 federal prosecutions for treason, with few resulting in convictions.
The bar for conviction is intentionally high, requiring clear and direct evidence of betrayal.
Also read: “I don’t have long”: Woman linked to Jeffrey Epstein scandal speaks out after accident
Can former presidents be prosecuted?
There is no public evidence that Obama engaged in any criminal conduct in relation to the Russia investigation.
Additionally, a Supreme Court ruling issued in 2023 affirmed that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for official acts taken during their time in office.
Legal analysts point to this decision as a significant barrier to any potential prosecution of Obama or others who served in his administration.
Also read: Trump plans meeting with Putin–A step towards ending the war?
Reactions from political leaders
The accusations have drawn a wide range of reactions.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson stated during a CBS interview:
“The people who are being called out now were involved in a scheme... it was a shameless false set of accusations and yet they perpetuated a lie on the American people. And they looked right into the camera and just lied. And they knew what they were up to the whole time. So there must be accountability for that.”
DNI Tulsi Gabbard, speaking to Fox News, commented: “It’s the art of deflection coming from former President Obama, as well as his friends who are still in Congress today.”
As of now, the Department of Justice has not launched any formal investigation.
Speaker Johnson has indicated he would support efforts to subpoena Obama for further questioning.
Also read: Presidential salaries revealed: How much money does the US President really earn?
What comes next?
There is no indication of a DOJ inquiry at this time, but calls for further investigation may continue in some political circles.
The discussion remains highly polarized, with strong views on both sides.
For now, the matter remains in the realm of public and political discourse rather than legal proceedings.
Read next: Biden’s cancer diagnosis sparks questions about screening and care—President Trump also responds
What do you think? Do you see these accusations as a legitimate concern—or more political theater? Have you seen similar moments in American history, and how did they play out? How do you think leaders on both sides should handle disputes of this scale?
Share your thoughts with us. Let’s keep the conversation respectful and thoughtful.
