In the final days of the Obama presidency — while Americans were focused on inaugurating a new president and turning the page on a divisive era — President Barack Obama signed a quiet but sweeping executive order that many now see as a ticking time bomb planted in the heart of our Intelligence Community.

On January 3, 2017, just 17 days before Donald Trump’s inauguration, Obama signed a modification to Executive Order 12333, authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to share raw signals intelligence (SIGINT) with all 16 other intelligence agencies — including the FBI, the CIA, and even obscure agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration’s intel wing.

At face value, the stated purpose was to “streamline intelligence sharing” and “improve coordination” in the age of global terrorism.  But conservatives saw something else: a calculated move to weaponize the intelligence apparatus against a political outsider — Donald J. Trump — before he could even take the oath of office.

From Terrorism to Trump? The Convenient Shift

Prior to this change, the NSA — which vacuumed up massive amounts of phone calls, emails, texts, and metadata — could share only filtered, “minimized” intelligence with other agencies.  That meant masking the names of American citizens incidentally caught up in foreign surveillance.

But Obama’s executive order reversed that policy, allowing raw, unredacted data — including conversations of U.S. citizens — to be freely distributed across the Intelligence Community.  In short, the firewalls were gone.  The surveillance spigot was opened.

Why now?  Why not during his eight years in office?

These are the questions conservatives have been asking ever since.

A Leak Pipeline Disguised as Reform

Within weeks of the order, classified leaks about members of Trump’s incoming administration began flowing.

The most prominent example?  Lt. General Michael Flynn.

In early 2017, intelligence officials leaked transcripts of Flynn’s phone calls with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak — conversations recorded by the NSA and circulated under the new data-sharing regime.  The leaks forced Flynn’s resignation as national security adviser after just 24 days and ignited a firestorm that crippled the Trump presidency for years.

Flynn was later cleared of criminal wrongdoing, but the damage was done.

So let’s connect the dots: Obama expanded access to unfiltered NSA data in his final weeks.  Those raw data were then used — and leaked — to undermine a sitting president.  If that’s not a setup, what is?

The “Unmasking” Epidemic

Even more disturbing was the surge in “unmasking” requests from Obama-era officials during the transition period.

Unmasking is the process by which an official asks to reveal the identity of a U.S. citizen caught up in foreign surveillance.  According to declassified records, senior Obama officials — including then–vice president Joe Biden, U.N. ambassador Samantha Power, and even James Clapper — submitted dozens of such requests targeting the Trump team.

The justification?  Vague national security concerns.  But in hindsight, it’s clear these unmasking requests were part of a broader strategy to surveil, leak, and neutralize political opponents before they could govern.

And it was all made possible — or at least much easier — thanks to Obama’s executive order.

Deep State Entrenchment 101

To critics, this wasn’t just an intelligence reform; it was the institutionalization of the Deep State.

The order ensured that hundreds, if not thousands, of additional analysts and bureaucrats across 17 agencies could now legally access the NSA’s digital gold mine.  With more hands on the data, leaks were harder to trace.  And with a hostile press eager to delegitimize Trump, the stage was set for a political slow-motion ambush disguised as “whistleblowing.”

While the term “Deep State” may sound conspiratorial, what else do you call a network of entrenched bureaucrats using classified tools to sabotage an elected president?

Was It Legal? Sure. Was It Ethical? Not Even Close.

Defenders of the order point out that it was technically within Obama’s legal authority.  But legality is not the same as legitimacy.

A president expanding intelligence access to his loyalists — weeks before handing power to a political rival — doesn’t pass the smell test.  If a Republican had done this to a Democrat, the media would have howled about authoritarianism and privacy violations.

But in this case?  Crickets.

In fact, most mainstream outlets didn’t even report on the executive order until months later, long after the leaks had done their damage.

The Real Legacy of Executive Order 12333

For all of Obama’s claims about “transparency” and “civil liberties,” his final act expanded the surveillance state more than any other modern president.

And for what?  To catch terrorists?  Or to target political opponents under the guise of national security?

Here’s what we know:

The order enabled widespread access to sensitive, raw intelligence.

That data were leaked in unprecedented ways — targeting Trump officials.

The leaks disrupted a duly elected administration.

And the media cheered it on.

This wasn’t a glitch in the system.  It was the system.

Conclusion: A Blueprint for Future Abuse

Obama’s parting gift was a booby-trapped surveillance infrastructure, tailor-made to hinder anyone who dared challenge the political establishment.  In that light, the Flynn leak wasn’t a scandal; it was a preview.

Conservatives must never forget this moment.  Executive orders may not make headlines, but their impact can reshape the Republic.  The next time a “national security” measure is rolled out in the dead of night, we should all ask: Who gains power — and who loses his freedom?

Because once the intelligence machine is turned inward, the target is no longer terrorists.  It’s you.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.