A viral tweet shared on January 10, 2026 by X (formerly Twitter) user @Real_RobN reignited a stormy debate over US political history, alleging explosive intelligence claims about former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election. The post centered on a controversial clip featuring Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she discussed declassified reports and intelligence interpretations about what Russia knew but didn’t release ahead of that campaign.The tweet repeated assertions claiming that Obama “knew Hillary Clinton was mentally unfit for office” and withheld that information from the public, linking this to an original Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). According to the viral post, Russia possessed “high-level DNC emails” concerning Clinton’s health and behaviour but chose not to release them. This narrative that has gained traction among some users, even though there is no independently verified evidence that such an ICA ever stated those exact findings.The caption of the viral tweet read, “Here is: The Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, drops a bomb 🔥🔥 Russia wasn’t the only one sitting on explosive secrets — Barack Hussein Obama knew Hillary Clinton was mentally unfit for office and deliberately hid it from the American people. Even the DNC questioned whether, if elected, she would be capable of carrying out the duties of the presidency. The original ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment) confirmed that Hillary Clinton was suffering from “intensified psycho-emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger and aggression,” and was placed on a daily regimen of “heavy tranquilizers.” Yet Barack Obama withheld a national-security threat from the American people and instead deliberately manufactured an ICA report in an attempt to overthrow the United States government. Think about it — a psychopath in the White House on heavy tranquilizers. Tell me, exactly how would that have turned out? Blackmail? Sabotage? Espionage? World War III? (sic).”
What Tulsi Gabbard is actually pointing to: Intelligence documents and interpretation
In mid-2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a tranche of once-classified documents from a House Intelligence Committee report and other materials related to Russia’s actions in the 2016 election. These documents, which have circulated in right-wing media and comment threads, led to claims that Russia had access to damaging information about Hillary Clinton’s physical and mental health and that US leaders were aware of it.According to news reports, the newly declassified material does include references suggesting that Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) possessed internal Democratic National Committee communications about Clinton’s health status, described in the reports as “extraordinarily alarming” to some within the DNC and that this information was kept secret.Crucially, none of the verified reporting says that any official intelligence product classified Clinton as “mentally unfit” or that Obama actively suppressed such a formal finding. The broader context in reporting emphasises that these interpretations have been highly politicised, extrapolated far beyond what the documents clearly demonstrate.
Tulsi Gabbard’s commentary vs established intelligence community findings
In the clip shared with the tweet, Gabbard reportedly linked the absence of a timely release of damaging material to Russia’s strategic calculations, claiming that Moscow assumed Clinton would win and only planned to disclose harmful information near her expected inauguration. She is heard saying in the clip, “One of the most significant pieces of evidence that was revealed in that report we released yesterday is the fact that Russia claimed to have very, very damaging information, high-level DNC emails relating specifically to Hillary Clinton’s physical and mental health, and DNC leaders questioning whether or not, if elected, she would even be capable of carrying out the duties of the presidency. Russia had this.”Gabbard added, “If they wanted to swing the election for Donald Trump, they would have released it in September, October of 2016 at a pivotal time to swing momentum into Donald Trump’s direction and damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They did not do that deliberately. They understood that Hillary Clinton would likely be the inevitable president of the United States. They didn’t think Trump could win, like a lot of other people, and so they were withholding this damaging information about Hillary Clinton and planning to release it in the days or weeks leading up to her expected inauguration in order to, once again, sow chaos within the United States.” This claim has not been independently verified. Similar framing was widely discussed in media reporting on the declassified documents.While Gabbard and supportive outlets describe these revelations as exposing a “contrived narrative” propagated by Obama–era officials, critics and journalists have countered that the released reports do not substantiate claims of an intentional suppression of a bipolar or mental-health determination about Clinton, nor do they conclusively show a cover-up of intelligence findings.
Broader US political backdrop and viral controversy on X
The release of these documents has already sparked additional political responses. The US Department of Justice in 2025 reportedly formed a task force to assess the matter, evaluating whether any legal steps should follow the release of the materials tied to Russia’s role in the 2016 campaign. Meanwhile, critics including former intelligence analysts have pushed back on the most dramatic interpretations of the declassified texts, arguing that Gabbard’s framing often magnifies or mischaracterizes what the raw documents actually describe.As of now, the narrative around these declassified intelligence documents and the interpretation amplified by the viral tweet remains fluid and highly partisan. There is no authoritative confirmation that intelligence agencies ever concluded that Hillary Clinton was “mentally unfit” for office in any official capacity, nor that former President Obama deliberately hid such a conclusion.Instead, what is publicly available consists of selectively declassified documents that many analysts say have been extrapolated into larger claims and political narratives beyond their original scope.
About the Author
