The mainstream media’s reluctance to cover Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s July 2025 findings, which allege a “treasonous conspiracy” by Obama administration officials to undermine President Trump’s 2016 victory, has fueled speculation about their role as potential co-conspirators in a broader effort to suppress the truth. Gabbard’s declassified documents, including a December 2016 briefing and emails suggesting the manipulation of intelligence to promote the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, have been largely ignored or downplayed by outlets like CNN, NBC, and The New York Times. Posts on X highlight this silence, noting that major publications like The Washington Post and The New York Times omitted the story from their front pages and search results, suggesting a deliberate attempt to bury a narrative that challenges the established Russia interference storyline. This selective coverage aligns with Gabbard’s claim that media outlets worked in tandem with Obama-era officials to propagate a false narrative, raising questions about their complicity in shaping public perception to delegitimize Trump’s presidency.

Critics argue that the mainstream media’s dismissal of Gabbard’s findings stems from their investment in the original Russia collusion narrative, which was amplified through leaks from intelligence officials post-2016 election. Gabbard’s report points to a December 9, 2016, meeting involving Obama’s national security team, followed by leaks to The Washington Post falsely claiming Russia used cyberattacks to influence the election outcome, despite earlier intelligence assessments stating otherwise. The media’s failure to engage with Gabbard’s evidence—such as the 2016 intelligence community’s initial conclusion that Russia lacked intent to manipulate election infrastructure—suggests an unwillingness to revisit a story they heavily promoted. Instead, outlets like CNN have aired brief segments, such as on “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” framing Gabbard’s claims as politically motivated attempts to distract from unrelated issues like the Jeffrey Epstein case, further deflecting scrutiny from the alleged conspiracy. This pattern of minimization supports the notion that the media may be protecting their role in disseminating what Gabbard calls “politicized intelligence.”

However, defenders of the mainstream media argue that their limited coverage reflects skepticism about the credibility of Gabbard’s claims, which have been criticized as misleading by bipartisan sources, including a 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report signed by then-Senator Marco Rubio. The Washington Post and others have countered that Gabbard’s documents do not undermine the established fact of Russian interference, particularly the DNC hack, and instead conflate distinct issues like cyberattacks on voting systems and influence campaigns. The media’s restraint could thus be seen as a refusal to amplify what they view as a politically driven narrative lacking substantive evidence. Yet, the near-total absence of in-depth reporting, coupled with accusations from figures like Rep. Jim Himes that Gabbard’s claims are “baseless,” risks reinforcing perceptions of bias, especially when contrasted with the media’s extensive coverage of the original Russia probe. This dynamic fuels distrust, as supporters of Gabbard’s findings point to the media’s silence as evidence of their complicity in a broader effort to shield Obama-era officials from accountability.