New CIA report criticizes investigation into Russia's support for Trump in 2016
The memo was written on the orders of CIA Director John Ratcliffe, a Trump loyalist who spoke out against the Russia investigation as a member of Congress. It finds fault with a 2017 intelligence assessment that concluded the Russian government, at the direction of President Vladimir Putin, waged a covert influence campaign to help Trump win.
It does not address that multiple investigations since then, including a report from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020, reached the same conclusion about Russia's influence and motives.
The eight-page document is part of an ongoing effort by Trump and close allies who now lead key government agencies to revisit the history of the long-concluded Russia investigation, which resulted in criminal indictments and shadowed most of his first term but also produced unresolved grievances and contributed to the Republican president's deep-rooted suspicions of the intelligence community.
The report is also the latest effort by Ratcliffe to challenge the decision-making and actions of intelligence agencies during the course of the Russia investigation.
A vocal Trump supporter in Congress who aggressively questioned former special counsel Robert Mueller during his 2019 testimony on Russian election interference, Ratcliffe later used his position as director of national intelligence to declassify Russian intelligence alleging damaging information about Democrats during the 2016 election even as he acknowledged that it might not be true.
The new, 'lessons-learned' review ordered by Ratcliffe in May was meant to examine the tradecraft that went into the intelligence community's 2017 assessment on Russian interference and to scrutinize in particular the conclusion that Putin 'aspired' to help Trump win.
The report cited several 'anomalies' that the authors wrote could have affected that conclusion, including a rushed timeline and a reliance on unconfirmed information, such as Democratic-funded opposition research about Trump's ties to Russia compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele.
The report takes particular aim at the inclusion of a two-page summary of the Steele dossier, which included salacious and uncorroborated rumors about Trump's ties to Russia, in an annex of the intelligence community assessment. It said that decision, championed by the FBI, 'implicitly elevated unsubstantiated claims to the status of credible supporting evidence, compromising the analytical integrity of the judgment.'
But even as Ratcliffe faulted top intelligence officials for a 'politically charged environment that triggered an atypical analytic process,' his agency's report does not directly contradict any previous intelligence.
Russia's support for Trump has been outlined in a number of intelligence reports and the August 2020 conclusions of the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Sen. Marco Rubio, who now serves as Trump's secretary of state. It also was backed by Mueller, who in his 2019 report said that Russia interfered on Trump's behalf and that the campaign welcomed the aid, even if there was insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy.
'This report doesn't change any of the underlying evidence — in fact it doesn't even address any of that evidence,' said Brian Taylor, a Russia expert who directs the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs at Syracuse University.
Taylor suggested the report may have been intended to reinforce Trump's claims that investigations into his ties to Russia are part of a Democratic hoax.
'Good intelligence analysts will tell you their job is to speak truth to power,' Taylor said. 'If they tell the leader what he wants to hear, you often get flawed intelligence.'
Intelligence agencies regularly perform after-action reports to learn from past operations and investigations, but it's uncommon for the evaluations to be declassified and released to the public.
Ratcliffe has said he wants to release material on a number of topics of public debate and has already declassified records relating to the assassinations of President John Kennedy and his brother, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, as well as the origins of COVID-19.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Brazilian energy companies suspend oil exports to US due to potential 50% tariffs
The Brazilian oil industry is facing a period of uncertainty after shipments to the US were suspended following President Donald Trump's announcement of a 50% tariff on Brazilian exports, reported Reuters, citing sources. Brazilian Petroleum and Gas Institute (IBP) president Roberto Ardenghy was quoted as saying: 'Business involving cargo that has to leave Brazil for the US is suspended.' The IBP represents major oil companies in Brazil including Petrobras, Shell, TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil and Equinor. Oil, Brazil's top export to the US, was previously exempt from a 10% tariff imposed in April. However, with the new tariffs set to come into effect soon, companies are unsure if oil will retain its exemption with Ardenghy having expressed that they have no way of knowing. The industry is now considering redirecting shipments to Europe and India, but for the moment, operations are on hold until the situation becomes clearer. Considering the impending tariffs, companies have opted to store oil on floating production vessels or cargo ships instead of proceeding with exports to the US. Ardenghy noted that due to the 21-day transit time for shipments to reach the US from Brazil, operations were stopped to prevent cargoes from being caught up in the new tariff regime. Petrobras, the state-run oil company, disclosed that approximately 8% of its oil exports in the second quarter were sent to the US. Petrobras CEO Magda Chambriard recently mentioned the company's contingency plans to potentially redirect oil it sells to the US, sending more to Asia and Pacific markets should higher tariffs be imposed. In a related development, President Trump is considering repealing restrictions on oil drilling in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the policy shift at a town hall in Utqiagvik, Alaska, indicating a drive towards increasing crude production from the reserve and a broader commitment to energy development in the region. "Brazilian energy companies suspend oil exports to US due to potential 50% tariffs" was originally created and published by Offshore Technology, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Business Insider
3 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Aid cuts from the United States could advance terrorism in Nigeria
Aid agencies have warned that aid cuts from the United States to Nigeria could push more people into the hands of terrorist organizations in the Northern region of Nigeria. Aid agencies warn cuts to U.S. assistance in Nigeria may increase terrorism recruitment. The United Nations' WFP reduced rations following a funding decrease from the U.S. President Trump's America First policy impacted global humanitarian aid funding. In recent months, the United Nations' World Food Programme has trimmed down rations to Nigeria owing to a drop in funding from the United States. "It will be much easier for militants to lure youths to join them and spiral insecurity across the whole region," Trust Mlambo, head of operations in the area for WFP, told the BBC. Since assuming office, U.S. President Donald Trump has embarked on an aggressive campaign to cut wasteful spending, in what he described as an America First policy. The initiative has had a negative impact on humanitarian support for destitute and war-torn nations. On January 20, 2025, an executive order put a 90-day hold on all US foreign development assistance, leading to the widespread suspension of aid programs. Till today, the United States still insists on drastically reducing the amount of aid sent to other countries. In keeping with President Donald Trump's America First idea, the US State Department admitted that certain changes have been made as a result of its recent restructuring of humanitarian aid programs. "The United States continues to be the most generous nation in the world, and we urge other nations to increase their humanitarian efforts," a senior State Department official stated. 80% of US government assistance to the WFP has not been impacted, as seen in a report by the BBC. This year, the WFP has already seen a rise in malnutrition rates in Nigeria due to a decrease in funding from all donors. The number of children suffering from the most severe and fatal kind of malnutrition more than doubled over the first half of the year, according to Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). "Six-hundred-and-fifty-two children have already died in our facilities since the beginning of 2025 due to lack of timely access to care," the medical charity said.
Forbes
3 minutes ago
- Forbes
Brown University Strikes $50 Million Deal With Feds To Restore Funding
Brown University has reached a $50 million agreement with the federal government that will restore more than $500 million in federal funding the Trump administration had frozen over allegations of discrimination against the university. In a July 30 letter to the campus, Brown President Christina H. Paxson wrote that the deal resolves ongoing reviews by three federal agencies — the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice — concerning the university's compliance with federal nondiscrimination obligations. It also ends the federal funding freeze for Brown that began in April, an action that Paxson said, 'posed enormous challenges for Brown's research mission and financial sustainability, and if left unaddressed, would have undermined our ability to conduct life-saving research and to offer our students a world-class education.' The agreement means that payments for active federal grants to Brown investigators will be resumed, and Brown will also once again be allowed to compete for new federal grants and contracts. In exchange, Brown agreed to pay $50 million over 10 years to workforce development organizations in Rhode Island, which Paxson said is 'aligned with our service and community engagement mission.' She went on to emphasize that 'the agreement does not include any payments or fines to the federal government.' The formal agreement contains several other conditions that Brown must meet. As examples, Brown agreed to: Paxson insisted that 'the University's foremost priority throughout discussions with the government was remaining true to our academic mission, our core values and who we are as a community at Brown.' She said that many aspects of the agreement codified changes Brown had already made to ensure compliance with federal laws prohibiting discrimination, before also acknowledging that other parts of the deal were new. Paxson noted that the 'agreement is not a result of any determination of fault by any government agency, and that it includes the statement that 'Brown expressly denies liability regarding the United States' allegations or findings." As a result, the 'agreement preserves the integrity of Brown's academic foundation,' according to Paxson, 'affirming that the government does not have the authority to dictate teaching, learning and academic speech.' A comparison between the deal struck between the government and Brown versus the one hammered out with Columbia University last week reveals a number of significant differences. First, is the sheer magnitude of payments involved. To resolve its dispute with the White House, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million over three years to the federal government along with another $21 million to settle investigations brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Second, Brown stressed that its payments will not go to federal coffers, a distinction that was described as "a step forward" from paying a fine to the government by Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. Instead, the $50 million will be donated to workforce development programming, which Paxson said aligns with the university's 'longstanding initiatives to support local partners who make a difference in the lives of thousands of Rhode Islanders and prove to be powerful engines of economic mobility in the state we call home...' Brown will also be allowed to choose the local organizations to which it distributes the funds. Third, Brown did not have to agree to employ and pay an independent monitor to assess the ongoing implementation of its resolution, as is the case with Columbia. Federal officials were quick to herald the deal, even as they continue to ramp up the pressure on other elite universities, most notably Harvard, to strike their own financial resolutions with the government. Education Secretary Linda McMahon praised the Brown outcome. 'Restoring our nation's higher education institutions to places dedicated to truth-seeking, academic merit, and civil debate—where all students can learn free from discrimination and harassment—will be a lasting legacy of the Trump administration, one that will benefit students and American society for generations to come,' she wrote in a social media post. However, the Brown agreement sets the stage for more ad-hoc deal-making forced up0n additional universities, a purely transactional strategy that many higher education officials view as a dangerous substitute for the traditional means of arriving at principled educational policies. Quoted in the New York Times, Mitchell said, "'We really look forward to engaging with this administration on matters of policy But this isn't policy. This is simple extortion and deal-making, which has no place in a democracy.'
