Trump Ordered To Arrest Obama Or Else!

A conservative commentator claims prosecuting Barack Obama is the key to winning midterm elections, but the proposal rests on allegations already investigated and dismissed by federal authorities.

Story Snapshot

Wayne Allyn Root urges Donald Trump to indict Obama for allegedly ordering illegal spying on the 2016 Trump campaign
Root proposes former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova as prosecutor to energize Trump’s base for midterm victories
Special Counsel John Durham’s 2019-2023 investigation found no Obama-led conspiracy despite criticizing FBI procedures
The strategy represents a shift from political oversight to criminal prosecution of former presidents without precedent
No arrests, indictments, or official actions have occurred despite Root’s repeated calls to action

The Political Gambit Behind the Prosecution Push

Wayne Allyn Root published a three-part series arguing that Barack Obama personally orchestrated surveillance operations against Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign through the DOJ, CIA, FBI, and NSA. Root’s February 2025 columns frame prosecution not primarily as justice but as electoral strategy. He explicitly connects indicting Obama to securing Republican victories in the 2026 midterm elections, presenting former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova as the ideal prosecutor. DiGenova, a Trump ally considered for DOJ roles during Trump’s first term, has publicly defended the president on Russia investigation matters. Root’s proposal treats criminal prosecution as a tool for political mobilization rather than legal accountability.

What the Durham Investigation Actually Found

The allegations Root revives stem from “Obamagate” or “Spygate” controversies that consumed Trump’s first term. These centered on FISA warrants obtained for Carter Page, a Trump campaign advisor, and the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Russian election interference. Special Counsel John Durham conducted a comprehensive investigation from 2019 to 2023 specifically examining these surveillance activities. Durham’s probe criticized FBI procedures and resulted in prosecutions of lower-level officials for making false statements, but it produced no evidence that Obama ordered or approved illegal spying. The investigation, led by a prosecutor appointed during Trump’s presidency, found no criminal conspiracy at the presidential level despite exhaustive review.

The Conspiracy Theory Expansion

Root’s narrative extends beyond surveillance allegations into broader conspiracy territory. He claims Obama’s actions were part of a scheme involving China, George Soros, and the World Economic Forum to prevent Trump from investigating Obama, Biden, and Clinton. These expansive claims lack supporting evidence in official investigations or mainstream reporting. Root’s third installment attempts to connect these allegations to what he describes as the “biggest scandal of the Biden presidency” involving unsigned documents, though specifics remain vague. The progression from specific surveillance complaints to global conspiracy theories weakens the credibility of the core allegations while potentially appealing to audiences already skeptical of establishment institutions.

The Precedent Problem and Constitutional Concerns

Prosecuting former presidents represents uncharted constitutional territory with profound implications for American governance. Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon in 1974 established a norm against criminal prosecution of former presidents, prioritizing national healing over retribution. Root’s proposal would shatter that precedent, opening possibilities for tit-for-tat prosecutions across party transitions. The House of Representatives conducted investigations into Trump administration actions following the 2018 midterms, but these focused on oversight rather than criminal charges. If Trump were to pursue Obama criminally based on unsubstantiated allegations, future administrations might feel justified in similar actions against Trump himself. This cycle would transform the Justice Department from an independent law enforcement agency into a weapon of political warfare.

Where the Evidence Actually Stands

Root’s columns provide no new evidence beyond his assertions and interpretations of previously investigated matters. The Gateway Pundit and Root’s own website, his primary platforms, have established records of publishing unverified claims and conspiracy theories. Brookings Institution analysis of congressional investigations shows that post-2018 oversight focused on Trump administration actions, not Obama-era surveillance. No mainstream news organizations have corroborated Root’s claims of Obama’s direct involvement in illegal spying. DiGenova has not publicly confirmed any role as prosecutor, and no official appointments have been announced. The gap between Root’s rhetorical urgency and actual legal developments suggests this functions more as political commentary than serious prosecution planning.

The Base Mobilization Strategy

Root’s explicit framing reveals the true objective: energizing Trump’s core supporters for electoral purposes. He describes his initial column as “one of the most popular, highly trafficked and controversial columns of the year,” indicating audience appetite for these narratives regardless of evidentiary support. The strategy assumes that dramatic actions against political opponents will drive voter turnout more effectively than policy achievements or traditional campaigning. This approach carries risks, however, as legal overreach could trigger court interventions, mobilize opposition voters, and deepen national polarization. The focus on retribution over governance may energize the base while alienating persuadable independents necessary for midterm victories.