Trump's Obama "Treason" Investigation: Why His Own Supreme Court Victory Makes It Dead on Arrival
Trump v. United States was a big win for Donald Trump... and possibly also Barack Obama.
President Trump wants to prosecute Barack Obama for treason. He's been ranting about it, posting fake videos of Obama getting arrested, and demanding criminal investigations. His Director of National Intelligence just sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department.
There's one problem: Trump's own Supreme Court victory last year makes prosecuting Obama legally impossible.
What Actually Happened This Week
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released documents claiming Obama's people "manufactured and politicized intelligence" about Russia's 2016 election interference. The basic allegation: in December 2016, intelligence agencies said Russia didn't impact election results. Then in January 2017, they produced a completely different assessment.
Gabbard sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department. Trump called Obama the "ringleader" of a "treasonous conspiracy" and said "it's time to go after people." He posted an AI-generated video showing Obama being arrested.
And to be honest with you, there might be something here. Obama's team probably did coordinate intelligence assessments for political reasons. The timeline looks bad. But wanting to prosecute someone and actually being able to do it are different things.
Trump Built Obama's Legal Shield
Here's what makes this whole thing ridiculous: Trump's own legal victory in Trump v. United States protects very likely Obama from prosecution. The Supreme Court ruled in July 2024 that former presidents have absolute immunity for actions within their core constitutional powers, and presumptive immunity for all other official acts.
What was Obama doing in December 2016 and January 2017? Running intelligence agencies. Coordinating with his national security team. Managing the transition to the incoming administration. Whether you think he did it right or wrong, those are official presidential duties.
The Supreme Court was clear about this stuff. "Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials." If Trump can't be prosecuted for his post-election calls to DOJ officials, Obama can't be prosecuted for coordinating intelligence assessments.
The Evidence Doesn't Matter
Gabbard's documents do show suspicious behavior. Intelligence agencies saying one thing before Trump won, then saying something completely different after he won should raise a lot of red flags. Obama's people coordinating that change raises legitimate questions about whether they crossed lines.
But the Supreme Court didn't base immunity on whether evidence exists or how bad the conduct was. They based it on presidential power itself. The Court said even corrupt motives don't eliminate immunity for official acts, because examining presidential decision-making would threaten executive independence.
The Court rejected the idea that immunity disappears when conduct "allegedly violates a generally applicable law." If that reasoning protected Trump's election-related communications, it protects Obama's intelligence coordination.
Everyone's Weaponizing Everything
The real problem isn't legal. It's that we've normalized using federal agencies as political weapons, then acting shocked when the other side does the same thing.
Obama's people used intelligence agencies against candidate Trump. Biden's Justice Department prosecuted former President Trump. Now Trump is using both agencies against Obama and Biden. Each side thinks they're righteous while calling their opponents criminals.
This isn't how any of this is supposed to work. Federal agencies serve the chief executive of the United States, at his (or someday her) behest. However, the Executive Branch is supposed to follow the Constitution, and these federal agencies are stuck serving the personal whims of presidents rather than the business and safety of the country.
Once you cross that line—and both parties have crossed it repeatedly—every new president faces the same choice: restore norms and look weak, or escalate and stay competitive.
Trump being Trump, he chose escalation. And given what happened to him, that's predictable. But it doesn't make it right.
Gabbard's Motivation
Tulsi Gabbard is in an interesting spot. She's doing her job serving the Trump administration, but she's also someone who got burned by Democratic leadership. Being put on the TSA's "Quiet Skies" surveillance program under Democratic control probably didn't improve her opinion of her former party.
Whether Gabbard completely believes these allegations or is settling scores while doing her job doesn't matter much. The documents look real. The concerns about intelligence manipulation are worth investigating. Prosecution just isn't legally possible.
The Real Problem
The tragedy isn't that Obama might escape accountability. It's that we've created a system where presidents face no accountability for anything they do in office, as long as they call it official business.
The Supreme Court got the basic idea right in Trump v. United States. Presidents do need protection from endless political prosecutions. Fear of criminal liability could paralyze decision-making. But now we've insulated the presidency from legal accountability while doing nothing about the weaponization problem.
Trump's Obama investigation will die in federal court, killed by Trump's own Supreme Court victory. That might frustrate people who think Obama deserves consequences. But it's probably better than watching these prosecution cycles escalate forever.
The real solution isn't more investigations or better immunity rules. It's electing presidents who understand that federal agencies serve the Constitution, not their political interests. Until that happens, we'll keep cycling through these episodes where each side weaponizes agencies against the other, then claims moral superiority.
Trump's base loves hearing about going after Obama. But the legal reality is simple: his own Supreme Court victory made that impossible.