"Arrests on Demand" – How Trump and Gabbard Attack the Rule of Law While Even Republicans Hesitate

Tulsi Gabbard delivered. With a public bang, the new Director of National Intelligence of the United States presented her evaluation of internal documents relating to the Russia affair surrounding the 2016 election – triggering a political earthquake that President Trump is deliberately using to escalate the situation. The publication, according to Trump's interpretation, proves an "attempted coup" by his predecessor Barack Obama. Now there must be "very serious consequences." What Trump means by that he made clear on his network Truth Social: an AI-generated video shows Obama in handcuffs, next to digital mug shots of his former cabinet members. We spared ourselves the trouble of publishing that garbage. But even within his own ranks, the president's push is met with reluctance. While there is broad agreement within the Republican Party that Gabbard's revelations are politically explosive – “pretty earth-shattering,” says House Majority Leader Steve Scalise – many of Trump’s party colleagues want nothing to do with open calls for arrests or indictments, as he now aggressively demands. Instead, they rely on a familiar formula: “First investigate, then judge.” The work is just beginning, Scalise emphasized. And Speaker Mike Johnson also remained vague, spoke of a “clear suspicion,” but only announced “new tools for accountability” – without specifying what those might be.

For Trump, this hesitant attitude is an annoyance. From his point of view, Gabbard's documents prove that the Obama team deliberately tried to undermine his election – a narrative he has been pursuing for years. The released documents, which partly correspond to already known information, show above all one thing: that US intelligence agencies found no evidence that Russia manipulated votes in 2016. However, they do confirm once again that Moscow launched a massive disinformation campaign – with the aim of sowing distrust. Exactly what Barack Obama had already said publicly. And exactly what the bipartisan Senate report of 2020 under Marco Rubio also supported: Russia wanted to help Trump – not because it loved him, but to harm Hillary Clinton and undermine trust in democracy. But Trump sees the new papers as final proof of betrayal – and his ally Gabbard supports this view with provocative terms like “conspiracy against the people” and “treason.” It is a tone that not only outrages Democrats. Even moderate Republicans consider the demand for immediate indictments to be legally questionable and politically dangerous. “We are at the very beginning,” warns Republican Ralph Norman. And Senator Lindsey Graham, while speaking of a “historic abuse of power” under Obama, merely calls for the appointment of a special counsel – not handcuffs.

Democrats, meanwhile, accuse the administration of primarily aiming to distract from growing demands for transparency in the Epstein affair. “They are lying. They are fabricating,” says Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. If Gabbard is truly convinced, then she should file charges – and allow the court to demonstrate how baseless her accusations are. “No court in the United States would hear this without bursting into laughter,” Himes said. For him, it is clear: the alleged revelations contain no substantial new information – and the risk that Gabbard exposes classified sources or methods through her publications is far greater than their political value. Obama’s team also spoke out with unusual clarity. The accusations are not only bizarre but a deliberate distraction. “Normally we do not respond to the constant stream of nonsense and disinformation coming from this White House. But in this case, it is so absurd that we must make an exception,” the statement read. The reaction was cool but clear: what Trump is doing here is political theater – with authoritarian overtones. Nevertheless, there are voices within the party who support the radical course. Right-wing Representative Anna Paulina Luna openly called for arrests: “If nobody gets arrested, this systemic corruption will just continue.” What she means by corruption remained unclear – as did the evidence on which such drastic measures should be based. Legally, however, a central principle stands in Trump’s way: in 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy immunity for actions within the scope of their official duties – even after leaving office. A ruling he had brought about himself. Ironically, it could now thwart his desire to break that very logic in Obama’s case.

What remains is an image that causes discomfort even among staunch Republicans: a president who distances himself from verifiable facts, playing with fantasy images of political opponents in prison garb – and an intelligence chief who uses her authority to impose political interpretation. What is lost in the process is trust in the principles of the rule of law. And what remains is a new precedent for the erosion of political culture: when documents no longer serve to enlighten, but to discipline. When justice becomes a threat. And when a state begins to shackle its predecessors not with files, but with handcuffs.

Investigative journalism requires courage, conviction – and your support.