A bombshell CIA review has exposed how the Obama-era Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian election interference was deliberately corrupted from the outset.
Rushed and Unconventional Process
Barack Obama ordered the assessment on December 6, 2016, just six weeks before leaving office. It concluded that Vladimir Putin “aspired” to help Donald Trump win the 2016 election. The process was chaotic, markedly atypical, and highly compressed—with drafts produced in less than a week and coordination squeezed into under two days. This rushed timeline deviated sharply from standard procedures for such sensitive, complex assessments, leaving many analysts feeling “jammed.”
All the world can now see the truth: Brennan, Clapper and Comey manipulated intelligence and silenced career professionals — all to get Trump. Thank you to the career @CIA officers who conducted this review and exposed the facts. https://t.co/S7Mxz6xA6P
— CIA Director John Ratcliffe (@CIADirector) July 2, 2025
Excessive Meddling by Top Officials
Then-CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper were excessively involved, handpicking analysts, limiting coordination to just four agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA, ODNI), and sidelining the National Intelligence Council and 13 other intelligence agencies. Brennan took the lead in drafting, marginalized normal review processes, and signaled early consensus among agency heads—risking stifled debate and analytic rigor. Senior involvement was unprecedented in scope and intensity, raising serious questions about potential political motives.
Forced Inclusion of the Discredited Steele Dossier
Despite strong objections from CIA authors and senior Russia experts—who warned it failed basic tradecraft standards and would undermine credibility—Brennan insisted on including the Steele dossier. The FBI tied its participation to the dossier’s inclusion, forcing references throughout the main body (with a disclaimer annex). A December 29, 2016, warning from CIA’s Deputy Director for Analysis was overruled, as Brennan prioritized “narrative consistency” over analytical soundness. The “aspire” judgment linking Putin to helping Trump was weakly supported and opposed internally as unnecessary and politically risky.
Media Leaks and Anchoring Bias
Early media reports on December 9, 2016, claiming the IC had concluded Russia helped Trump created an “anchoring” effect, potentially influencing analysts before the assessment was even finalized.
Overall Impact and Legacy
The review highlights how tradecraft was compromised under severe constraints, limited sharing, and heavy senior scrutiny—ultimately damaging the ICA’s credibility and focus. This politicized effort helped fuel the false Trump-Russia collusion narrative, consumed the early years of Trump’s presidency, and exacerbated U.S.-Russia tensions based on manipulated intelligence.
As one key figure put it, this was about deciding to “screw Trump” by weaponizing an IC assessment to create an unquestionable imprimatur for the claims.