The report urged that future assessments avoid political pressures, allow sufficient time for debate, and uphold strict analytic independence.
A newly declassified CIA review has concluded that the 2016 U.S. intelligence assessment that Russia sought to help then-candidate Donald Trump win the presidential election was influenced by political pressures, rushed timelines, and the inclusion of discredited information.
Nonetheless, the assessment was “deemed defensible” by the review team.
Released on July 2 by CIA Director John Ratcliffe, the review details significant departures from standard analytic procedures in compiling the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian election interference, a declassified version of which was publicly released in January 2017.
Ratcliffe’s newly released review found “multiple procedural anomalies” in the ICA’s preparation.
It accuses former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper of exerting “excessive involvement” in the drafting process in a manner that career analysts described as “chaotic,” “unconventional,” and with “a potential political motive.”
“All the world can now see the truth: Brennan, Clapper, and Comey manipulated intelligence and silenced career professionals—all to get Trump,” Ratcliffe said in a statement.
“Under my watch, I am committed to ensuring that our analysts have the ability to deliver unvarnished assessments that are free from political influence,” he added.
The new review was prepared by career professionals in the CIA’s Directorate of Analysis. It scrutinized the procedures and analysis behind the high-profile assessment, which had concluded with “high confidence” that Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin “aspired” to help Trump win the presidency by using every possible opportunity to discredit Trump’s opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Ratcliffe said in a statement posted on social media platform X that the CIA review came amid efforts to “end weaponization of US intelligence,” and that the 2016 intelligence assessment was carried out through an “atypical and corrupt process.”
The Epoch Times has contacted Brennan, Clapper, and Comey through their speaking engagement representatives to request comment. In various public statements in recent years, all three have denied any political motive in the preparation of the 2016 intelligence assessment and have said its findings are objective and fact-based.
According to the review findings, President Barack Obama directed the preparation of the ICA in early December 2016 amid widespread media reports—citing unnamed officials—that the intelligence community had already concluded that Russia had intervened to help Trump.
Analysts said in the CIA review that these leaks risked creating “anchoring bias” and pre-shaping the conclusions.
The review found the ICA was produced under a drastically compressed timeline, with initial drafts prepared in less than a week and final coordination completed in just days during the holiday season.
“Multiple IC stakeholders said they felt ‘jammed’ by the compressed timeline,” the review states, adding that such time pressure likely prevented deeper analysis and substantive debate around the preparation of the type of report that normally takes months.
Also, the rushed publication of the report before the presidential transition “raised questions about a potential political motive behind the White House tasking and timeline,” the review found.
Beyond the speed of the process, the CIA review highlighted significant issues with compartmentalization and access to intelligence.
According to the report, large portions of the assessment were crafted in secrecy, with critical information withheld from many analysts, including those at the National Intelligence Council (NIC), the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
Brennan created a tightly controlled “Fusion Cell” within the CIA to handle the most sensitive intelligence. Most contributors to the ICA were only able to access this information days before publication, the CIA review said. Some key analysts were unable to review the most controversial findings in full context, limiting the opportunity for “robust analytic debate.”
The review singles out the decision to include the now-discredited Steele dossier in the ICA as a major tradecraft failure.
The move to include the Steele dossier—authored by British ex-spy Christopher Steele and containing various allegations about Trump—was driven largely by FBI leadership, according to the CIA review.
ICA authors and senior CIA managers—including several of the agency’s top Russia analysts—objected forcefully, the review said. They argued at the time that the dossier “did not meet even the most basic tradecraft standards.”
The deputy director for analysis at the CIA warned Brennan that inclusion of the Steele dossier would undermine the credibility of the entire assessment, according to the review.
While concluding that the assessment’s overall findings were supportable, the CIA review cautioned that significant procedural anomalies and tradecraft shortcomings “highlight critical lessons for handling controversial or politically charged topics.”
The report urged that future assessments avoid political pressures, allow sufficient time for debate, and uphold strict analytic independence.
If you found this article interesting, please consider supporting traditional journalism
Our first edition was published 25 years ago from a basement in Atlanta. Today, The Epoch Times brings fact-based, award-winning journalism to millions of Americans.
Our journalists have been threatened, arrested, and assaulted, but our commitment to independent journalism has never wavered. This year marks our 25th year of independent reporting, free from corporate and political influence.
That’s why you’re invited to a limited-time introductory offer — just $1 per week — so you can join millions already celebrating independent news.
