Newly declassified documents have reignited scrutiny over the handling of the controversial Steele dossier during the 2016 election. A review ordered by CIA Director John Ratcliffe reveals troubling decisions by Obama-era intelligence officials, raising questions about political bias in one of the most contentious periods in recent political history. What did these officials know, and why did they act despite clear warnings?

Summary

• Former CIA Director John Brennan insisted on including the unverified Steele dossier in the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) despite objections from intelligence experts.
• The dossier, funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, contained unverified allegations about Trump’s Russia ties.
• The review found the ICA process was rushed and marked by unusual involvement from agency heads, compromising analytic rigor.
• Brennan’s push prioritized narrative over evidence, undermining the credibility of the ICA’s conclusions.
• CIA Director John Ratcliffe declassified the review to promote transparency in intelligence processes.

Brennan’s Push for the Steele Dossier

A declassified review, ordered by CIA Director John Ratcliffe and released on July 2, 2025, exposes how former CIA Director John Brennan aggressively advocated for the inclusion of the Steele dossier in the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which evaluated Russian interference in the presidential election. 

Despite objections from two mission center leaders—one with extensive operational experience and another with a strong analytic background—Brennan pressed forward. 

The dossier, authored by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, contained salacious and unverified claims about then-candidate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. 

“Despite these objections, Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness,” the review stated. “When confronted with specific flaws in the Dossier by the two mission center leaders – one with extensive operational experience and the other with a strong analytic background – 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.’”

Dossier’s Questionable Origins

The Steele dossier was commissioned by Fusion GPS, hired by the law firm Perkins Coie on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee. 

Its unverified nature and political funding raised red flags among intelligence professionals, yet Brennan, who served as CIA Director from 2013 to 2017, dismissed these concerns. 

The review determined that including the dossier “ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment.” This decision has fueled long-standing conservative criticisms of politicization within the intelligence community during the Obama administration.

A Flawed Intelligence Process

The review also highlighted procedural anomalies in the ICA’s development, including a rushed timeline and unprecedented involvement by agency heads like Brennan. 

“While agency heads sometimes review controversial analytic assessments before publication, their direct engagement in the ICA’s development was highly unusual in both scope and intensity,” the review noted. “This exceptional level of senior involvement likely influenced participants, altered normal review processes, and ultimately compromised analytic rigor.” 

Brennan’s actions, including a note sent to analysts the day before their only ICA coordination session, signaled a predetermined consensus with then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-FBI Director James Comey.

Ratcliffe’s Call for Transparency

CIA Director John Ratcliffe ordered the review to examine the ICA’s claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to aid Trump’s 2016 campaign. 

Declassifying the findings, Ratcliffe emphasized accountability: “Agency heads at the time created a politically charged environment that triggered an atypical analytic process around an issue essential to our democracy. Under my watch, I am committed to ensuring that our analysts have the ability to deliver unvarnished assessments that are free from political influence.” 

His actions underscore a commitment to restoring trust in intelligence processes, a priority for conservatives wary of deep-state overreach.

Conclusion

The declassified review casts a harsh light on Brennan’s leadership and the handling of the Steele dossier, reinforcing concerns about bias in the intelligence community. 

As conservatives have long argued, the politicization of such reports risks undermining public confidence in institutions meant to serve the nation impartially. With Ratcliffe’s push for transparency, this revelation may prompt further scrutiny of past intelligence practices.