Treason. It’s a heavy word. In the United States, it is the only crime specifically defined by the Constitution, and it carries the ultimate penalty. So, when the news cycle starts buzzing with claims that a former president—specifically Barack Obama—is being accused of it, people naturally stop and stare. But if you actually dig into the "why" behind these accusations, you find a messy blend of high-stakes legal theories, old political grudges, and some very specific documents that recently hit the public eye in 2025.
Honestly, the word "treason" gets thrown around a lot in modern politics as a synonym for "I really hate what this person did." However, the current accusations against Obama aren't just random tweets; they are tied to formal claims made by high-ranking officials in the current administration.
The 2025 Bombshell: Tulsi Gabbard and the "Treasonous Conspiracy"
The most recent and loudest wave of these accusations stems from July 2025. Tulsi Gabbard, serving as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), released a series of declassified documents. She didn't mince words. Gabbard explicitly accused Obama and his top national security team of engaging in a "treasonous conspiracy" during the 2016 transition period.
What was the "conspiracy"? According to the DNI, the Obama administration "manufactured" intelligence.
The claim is that they used the now-infamous Steele Dossier—which many now view as unreliable—to justify spying on Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. Gabbard argued that this wasn't just a mistake or a bad intelligence call. She labeled it a "years-long coup" intended to subvert the will of the voters. By July 22, 2025, President Trump himself was echoing these sentiments from the Oval Office, flatly stating, "Obama’s been caught directly. He’s guilty. This was treason."
Breaking Down the Legal Reality
Now, we have to look at what the law actually says. You can't just call someone a traitor because they played dirty in an election.
Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution is very narrow. It says treason consists only in "levying War" against the U.S. or "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
👉 See also: What Category Was Harvey? The Surprising Truth Behind the Number
- Levying War: This usually means an armed uprising. Think the Civil War.
- Aid and Comfort: This means helping a country we are legally at war with.
Legal experts, like former deputy assistant attorney general Elliot Williams, have pointed out that even if the Obama administration did politicize intelligence (a claim that is still hotly debated), that doesn't fit the constitutional definition of treason. Misusing government power is a crime, sure. It might be "sedition" or "abuse of office." But treason? That’s a nearly impossible bar to clear in a courtroom.
The "Obamagate" Roots
To understand why this is happening now, you have to remember "Obamagate." This isn't a new story; it’s just a new chapter. For years, the core of the accusation has been that the Obama-era FBI used the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to spy on Trump campaign advisors like Carter Page.
The narrative goes like this:
- The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to win.
- They used a "fake" dossier paid for by the DNC to get a warrant.
- They used that warrant to listen in on the opposition.
- They "unmasked" Michael Flynn to ruin his reputation.
Critics of Obama argue that by using the machinery of the state to take down a political rival, he was essentially "waging war" on the democratic process itself. Supporters of Obama, however, point to multiple Inspector General reports that found the Russia investigation was opened with a legitimate "authorized purpose," even if there were significant procedural errors in how the FBI handled the FISA applications.
The Iran Deal and Bowe Bergdahl
While the 2025 accusations focus on the 2016 election, there’s an older "treason" narrative that still floats around in conservative circles. It usually centers on two things: the Iran Nuclear Deal and the Bowe Bergdahl swap.
When Obama signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and eventually allowed the transfer of $1.7 billion in frozen assets to Iran, his harshest critics called it "giving aid and comfort to an enemy." Never mind that the U.S. wasn't technically at war with Iran—the optics of "pallets of cash" going to a state sponsor of terrorism were enough to fuel treason talk for a decade.
✨ Don't miss: When Does Joe Biden's Term End: What Actually Happened
Then there was the 2014 swap of five Taliban leaders for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. Soldiers who served with Bergdahl, like Kenneth Wortham, called him a deserter. When Obama stood in the Rose Garden with Bergdahl’s parents, it felt like a betrayal to many in the veteran community. Trump even said at the time that trading "five killers" for "one traitor" bordered on treason.
Why Is This Bubbling Up Right Now?
It’s 2026. Why are we still talking about 2016?
Context is everything. In mid-2025, the Trump administration was facing massive public pressure regarding the release of files related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. Many political analysts, and even former Obama staffers like Tommy Vietor, argued that the sudden "treason" referrals against Obama were a distraction tactic.
"Nothing has made me more confident that Trump is covering something up than this insane pivot to calling Obama seditious," Vietor posted during the height of the 2025 frenzy.
On the flip side, Attorney General Pam Bondi has confirmed that the DOJ is taking the criminal referrals from Tulsi Gabbard seriously. There is a grand jury investigation. FBI Director Kash Patel has also been vocal about looking into whether figures like John Brennan and James Comey made false statements to Congress.
The Immunity Factor
Even if a prosecutor wanted to move forward, there’s a giant legal wall in the way: Trump v. United States.
🔗 Read more: Fire in Idyllwild California: What Most People Get Wrong
The 2024 Supreme Court ruling established that former presidents have "absolute immunity" for actions taken within their "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority." They also have "presumptive immunity" for all other official acts.
Since overseeing the Department of Justice and the Intelligence Community is a core part of a president's job, any actions Obama took regarding the 2016 Russia probe would likely be protected. Ironically, the very legal shield Donald Trump fought for now serves as the biggest hurdle to prosecuting Barack Obama.
What’s Actually Likely to Happen?
Most legal scholars agree that an actual treason conviction for Barack Obama is essentially zero. The Constitution is designed to prevent the government from using "treason" as a tool to silence political opponents.
However, we are seeing something we’ve never seen before in American history: a sitting administration actively using the Department of Justice to investigate a predecessor for the highest crime in the land. Even if it never reaches a trial, the damage to the "norm" of peaceful transitions is already done.
Navigating the Noise: What You Can Do
When you see headlines about "Obama" and "Treason," the best thing you can do is check the source and the specific legal claim.
- Check the Definition: Is the accusation about "aiding a foreign enemy we are at war with"? If not, it probably doesn't meet the legal definition of treason.
- Follow the Documents: Look for the actual declassified memos from the DNI. Don’t just rely on the summary provided by a politician.
- Watch the Court Filings: Political rhetoric is one thing; what a lawyer is willing to sign their name to in front of a judge is another. Until an actual indictment lists "18 U.S. Code § 2381," it’s mostly political theatre.
The reality is that we are living through a period of "retribution politics." Whether you see Obama as a victim of a witch hunt or a leader who overstepped his bounds, the word "treason" remains the most explosive accusation in the American vocabulary.
Keep an eye on the grand jury proceedings in Washington. If there are actual criminal charges filed—even if they aren't for treason—they will likely focus on "Seditious Conspiracy" or "Falsifying Records," which are much easier to prove than the "T" word. Stay informed, but keep your eyes on the legal fine print.