The Trump administration has reportedly revoked the security clearance of Susan Miller, a retired senior CIA counterintelligence officer, following questions about her role in crafting a controversial intelligence assessment.
The Daily Caller reported that Miller had publicly defended the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), suggesting Russia favored candidate Trump, despite internal records and testimony indicating conflicting views and her disputed involvement in the report's creation.
Susan Miller, once hailed within the intelligence world and more recently by D.C. museums, now finds herself at the center of a wide-ranging credibility issue.
Her claims of influence on the 2016 ICA have not only drawn scrutiny but also directly conflict with new disclosures and whistleblower testimony from within the CIA.
A whistleblower described as a senior CIA analyst and a member of the ICA team has stated unequivocally that Miller had “zero role” in producing the assessment.
While he acknowledged that members of her team participated, he said Miller herself had no contribution to the document’s production.
This directly contradicts Miller’s statements in media appearances, including a “SpyTalk” podcast interview, where she claimed that she helped draft and assemble the ICA team. Given the discrepancy, it’s not hard to grasp why trust in her account might be thin among those who value evidence over ego.
Making matters more complicated, records released in July by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard showed the ICA team knew there was no conclusive evidence that Moscow favored Trump at the time. That inconvenient reality casts an even longer shadow over Miller’s public narrative.
Two Trump administration officials told Just The News that Miller’s full security clearance has been revoked. The decision came after her repeated public defense of the ICA, which many critics across the intelligence spectrum now view as flawed or misleading.
“A woman involved in the Russia Hoax cannot be trusted with a security clearance,” said a senior Trump official, who added it had therefore been revoked. The statement came with the kind of blunt clarity that’s become all too rare in Washington.
Even the Department of Defense has chosen not to comment on the matter so far, offering neither confirmation nor objection—though silence can speak volumes in an agency that rarely comments directly on such matters.
Miller’s credibility took another hit when internet sleuths noticed that her LinkedIn profile still claimed she held “full clearance.” Journalist Sean Davis posted a screenshot of the page on August 14, 2025, tagging the detail as outdated and no longer accurate.
While perhaps innocent in error, continuing to claim access to top-level information after it’s been stripped raises questions about transparency and professionalism. At best, it's outdated; at worst, misleading.
Another sharp line came from a senior defense official who labeled Miller’s role in shaping the Russia narrative as dishonest. “All she did was lie to the American people to hurt Trump,” the official said without hesitation.
The latest findings from the DNI do not help Miller’s case. According to the new documentation, the ICA team was fully aware they lacked solid evidence proving a Russian preference for Trump—contrary to the conclusions the public was led to believe at the time.
Adding another twist, a 2020 House Intelligence Committee report cited by Gabbard suggested Russia may have had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Yet investigators found no plans by the Kremlin to release it—unless she had won the election.
These nuances, long buried under headlines and spin, now shine a harsh light on past intelligence positioning. Perhaps no longer “Russian Hoax,” but still hardly the ironclad truth the public was promised by some of its defenders.
Despite the controversy, Miller has not been without honors. She previously received the Women Intelligence Trailblazers award from the International Spy Museum, a recognition based on her broader intelligence career rather than this controversial episode.
Still, awards can’t insulate reputations forever—especially when the record doesn’t match the rhetoric. Honoring service is one thing, but upholding truth in intelligence work is something else entirely.
Whatever role she played—or didn’t—the revocation of her clearance underscores that security access should not be retained based on status, but rather on solid trust and confirmed conduct.