Tulsi Gabbard has released declassified testimony that, she says, shows a coordinated effort inside the intelligence community to “manufacture a conspiracy” that helped drive the first impeachment of President Donald Trump. The newly released transcripts focus on the role of former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson and questions about whether standard procedures were followed and whether political bias guided the process.
Gabbard’s office says the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released two transcripts showing Atkinson advanced a whistleblower complaint that was largely based on secondhand information from someone who had worked with then-Vice President Joe Biden in Ukraine. Her team argues that Atkinson’s actions “weaponize[d] the whistleblower process and exceed[ed] his statutory jurisdiction.” The allegation is that the preliminary probe was treated as a de facto full investigation.
Those actions helped trigger the first impeachment by labeling the complaint as “credible” in connection with a July 2019 phone call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president. Critics on the right say the inspector general “did not follow standard IG procedures and relied upon politicized, manufactured narratives” when he moved the complaint forward. That claim fuels long-standing concerns about politicized leaks and selective enforcement inside intelligence oversight.
Gabbard notes that Atkinson “aggressively advanced” his preliminary probe while depending on secondhand testimony and witnesses she describes as politicized, and she charges he “never conducted a formal or complete investigation.” She also quoted Atkinson himself: “In his own words, IC IG Atkinson recognizes that his conclusions were based on a ‘preliminary investigation,’ noting that ‘I haven’t done an investigation to determine whether they actually, in fact, took place … that all of the alleged actions actually took place,’” which raises questions about how preliminary findings were presented to Congress.
Under the law, an inspector general’s initial role is to assess whether a whistleblower complaint “appears credible,” not to fully substantiate every allegation before passing it along to Congress. Still, conservatives argue that labeling a complaint credible without a complete probe can give powerful momentum to politically damaging claims. Atkinson did not immediately provide comment in response to the release of the transcripts.
The testimony also says the primary whistleblower was identified as a “registered Democrat” and that they had alerted House staff on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence before submitting their form. The whistleblower reportedly admitted they “worked closely with Vice President Biden” and “travelled with Biden to Ukraine and was part of conversations where LUTSENKO corruption was discussed,” which critics argue creates a direct question about potential bias and motive.
Atkinson, according to the transcripts, insisted he “never considered the whistleblower to be politically biased,” a line that Gabbard and allies cite as inconsistent with other revelations in the record. The initial whistleblower form reportedly stated, “I do not have direct knowledge of private comments or communications,” which undercuts later claims of firsthand evidence. Legal experts note whistleblower laws do not require first-hand information, but political opponents argue credibility assessments still demand caution.
Gabbard also points to a witness Atkinson relied on who co-authored the controversial 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian collusion, framing that connection as part of a broader pattern of establishment actors steering national security narratives. She accused Atkinson of putting politics ahead of the truth and said, “Deep state actors within the Intelligence Community concocted a false narrative that was used by Congress to usurp the will of the American people and impeach the duly-elected President of the United States.” She added that “exposing these tactics and showing how they undermine the fabric of our democratic republic furthers the critical cause of transparency and accountability and will help prevent future abuse of power.”
Democratic leaders scoffed at the declassification effort, with criticism framed as an attempt to curry favor with the former president. “This is a nothingburger — just another sad attempt by Tulsi Gabbard to get in Donald Trump’s good graces,” Sen. Mark Warner said, while Rep. Jim Himes wrote on social media, “Everyone can read the transcript of Trump’s phone call to extort President Zelenskyy for dirt on Biden. That was an impeachable offense, and no amount of dust kicking and sycophancy can obscure it,” adding, “Had Joe Biden made that call, Republicans would have burned the place down.” Lawmakers from both parties were contacted for comment as the debate over the released material continues.
