Former CIA Director John Brennan, who served under President Barack Obama, pushed for the so-called "Steele dossier" to be included in an assessment evaluating Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to a review declassified Wednesday. The dossier, which featured salacious material and unfounded allegations about President Donald Trump’s connections to Russia, was a controversial document that has been the subject of significant political and legal scrutiny. Despite warnings from senior CIA officials about the dossier’s credibility, Brennan’s insistence on integrating the information into the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) compromised the report’s analytical rigor and credibility.
The review also highlighted that Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness. When confronted with specific flaws in the dossier by mission center leaders with extensive operational experience and strong analytic backgrounds, he appeared more swayed by the dossier’s general conformity with existing theories than by legitimate tradecraft concerns. Brennan ultimately formalized his position in writing, stating that "my bottomline is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report."
The lessons-learned review determined that the decision by agency heads to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment. The review emphasized that the ICA, which was intended to evaluate Russian interference in the 2016 election, faced significant challenges, including a rushed timeline and atypical involvement of agency heads in its development. This unusual level of senior involvement likely influenced participants, altered normal review processes, and ultimately compromised analytic rigor.
Furthermore, the review pointed out that Brennan sent a note to intelligence community analysts one day before their only session coordinating on the ICA, stating that he had met with then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-FBI Director James Comey. Brennan told the CIA workforce that "there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our recent Presidential election." This premature signaling that agency heads had already reached consensus before the ICA was even coordinated risked stifling analytic debate among analysts.
The ICA, which was originally intended to assess the broader scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election, faced significant criticism for its procedural anomalies and the inclusion of the Steele Dossier. The report’s credibility was further undermined by the atypical involvement of agency heads in its development and the rushed timeline for its completion. The lessons-learned review highlighted the need for greater transparency and adherence to traditional intelligence standards to prevent similar issues in the future.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe ordered the review earlier in 2025 to promote transparency and to ensure that future assessments remain free from political influence. In his statement, Ratcliffe emphasized the importance of allowing analysts to deliver unvarnished assessments, free from political pressures. The declassified findings serve as a cautionary tale about the potential for personal biases and political considerations to compromise the integrity of intelligence assessments.
This incident has sparked renewed debates about the role of intelligence agencies in shaping public perception of political events, particularly in high-stakes elections. The controversy surrounding the Steele dossier and its inclusion in the ICA underscores the challenges of balancing national security concerns with the need for objective, methodical intelligence assessments. As the review of the ICA continues, the focus remains on ensuring that past errors are not repeated and that future assessments adhere to the highest standards of analytical rigor and operational integrity.