Brace yourself for a bombshell that shakes the foundations of trust in our intelligence community. A recent CIA review has pulled back the curtain on a troubling chapter from the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russia’s role in the 2016 election, exposing decisions that prioritized narrative over evidence.
The Daily Caller reported that this revelation shows how Obama-era intelligence leaders, including then-CIA Director John Brennan, pushed to include the now-discredited Steele Dossier in the ICA despite serious objections, undermining the report’s credibility and raising questions about motives.
Let’s rewind to 2017, when the ICA was crafted to assess Russia’s influence on the 2016 election. The report concluded that Vladimir Putin aimed to erode faith in American democracy, discredit Hillary Clinton, and boost Donald Trump’s chances. But the process to reach those findings was anything but standard.
The CIA’s June 2025 review, commissioned by current Director John Ratcliffe, uncovered a laundry list of procedural oddities in the ICA’s creation. We’re talking rushed timelines, tight-lipped compartmentation, and unusual meddling by agency heads—hardly the recipe for unbiased analysis.
Central to this mess is the Steele Dossier, a document compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele for Fusion GPS, a firm indirectly tied to the Clinton campaign through a law firm.
This dossier, leaning on public news rather than solid intel, alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Yet, it became a linchpin in the ICA despite its shaky foundation.
Analysts and high-ranking CIA officials weren’t just skeptical—they were outright opposed to including this dossier. The Deputy Director for Analysis even warned Brennan via email on Dec. 29, 2016, that it could tank the report’s credibility. But did that caution matter?
Apparently not, as Brennan seemed more enamored with the dossier’s alignment to preconceived ideas than with proper intelligence standards.
“Despite these objections, Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness,” the CIA review notes. That’s a polite way of saying facts took a backseat to a favored storyline.
When two senior operatives flagged the dossier’s flaws, Brennan reportedly brushed aside their concerns for not fitting the existing theory. “He appeared more swayed by the Dossier’s general conformity,” the review states. If that’s not a red flag for agenda-driven intelligence, what is?
Current CIA Director Ratcliffe didn’t mince words in his critique, telling the New York Post, “This was Obama, Comey, Clapper and Brennan deciding ‘We’re going to screw Trump.’” He argues it was about slapping an official stamp on a questionable narrative to make it untouchable. That’s a gut punch to anyone who expects our agencies to play it straight.
The fallout continues with Rep. Rick Crawford, the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, slamming the CIA’s self-review as woefully incomplete. On July 3, 2025, he called it “abysmal” for dodging the full scope of what he terms the “Russia hoax” and the role of entrenched bureaucrats. His frustration is palpable, and understandably so.
Crawford’s beef isn’t just with the review—it’s with access to a congressional report from the 116th Congress, crafted under Devin Nunes amid severe CIA restrictions. “The report was produced despite extraordinary restrictions,” Crawford wrote, noting it details efforts to fabricate a Trump-Russia collusion story. Yet, the CIA has kept this document under lock and key for seven years.
Despite Crawford’s repeated requests, including a formal letter to Ratcliffe on March 6, 2025, the report remains out of reach for the committee. “Despite repeated engagements, we still do not have our report,” he lamented. That’s not just stonewalling; it’s a disservice to transparency.
This isn’t about relitigating old elections—it’s about whether our intelligence apparatus can be trusted to prioritize truth over politics. When agency leaders ignore their own experts to push a flawed document like the Steele Dossier, it erodes public confidence. And shouldn’t that be the ultimate concern?
The CIA’s review, while a step toward accountability, clearly isn’t enough for critics like Crawford, who see it riddled with omissions. Ratcliffe’s blunt assessment suggests a deliberate attempt to tarnish Trump, which, if true, is a betrayal of the impartiality we expect from our spies. It’s a reminder that power, unchecked, can twist even the most sacred institutions.