A newly declassified CIA review has found that the agency’s 2016 assessment of Russian election interference suffered from significant tradecraft flaws and political pressure during its creation. The review does not challenge the conclusion that Russia favored Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. election but criticizes the way analysts reached that finding.
What did the review say about the assessment?
The “lessons-learned” report, ordered earlier this year by current CIA Director John Ratcliffe, found the original Intelligence Community Assessment was produced under a rushed timeline and with an atypical level of involvement from senior agency officials. The review found that top officials, including then-CIA Director John Brennan, influenced the process in ways that may have affected analytic integrity.
The report criticized Brennan for tightly controlling access to source material and for supporting the inclusion of the unverified so-called Steele dossier, despite internal objections. The review said Brennan appeared more persuaded by the dossier’s alignment with prevailing theories than by its lack of verifiable sourcing.
How did the Steele dossier affect the report?
Officials added the dossier, compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, as an annex to the 2017 declassified ICA. Analysts and senior staff warned that including the material would undermine the assessment’s credibility. Despite those warnings, Brennan wrote that he believed the dossier “warrants inclusion,” according to the review.
The review cited a December 2016 email from the CIA’s deputy director for analysis warning that including the dossier risked “the credibility of the entire paper. “
Were intelligence conclusions supported?
The reviewers said analysts presented one key judgment, Russia’s intent to help Trump, with a “high confidence” level that the evidence didn’t justify. According to the review, the CIA relied on a single source for that claim, which violates internal standards requiring multiple corroborating sources for such judgments.
However, the review affirmed other ICA conclusions, including that Russia sought to undermine confidence in U.S. democracy and damage Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.
How have officials responded?
In a press release, Ratcliffe said the review showed how senior officials at the time created a “politically charged environment that triggered an atypical analytic process around an issue essential to our democracy.” He pledged to ensure that CIA analysts can “deliver unvarnished assessments that are free from political influence.”
Intelligence officials involved in the 2016 assessment, including former CIA Director John Brennan, did not issue formal responses.
Beth Sanner, a former vice chair of the National Intelligence Council, said its inclusion was a “poison pill” that damaged the report’s perceived integrity, even though it had no bearing on the ICA’s core conclusions.
