A newly declassified 2020 House Intelligence Committee report, made public by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, reveals that former President Barack Obama directed intelligence agencies to release a 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that suggested Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. However, the report indicates that no direct evidence supported this claim, and the ICA was shaped by “unusual” instructions from Obama and senior officials, leading to potentially misleading conclusions.
The investigation, originally launched by then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and finalized under Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), produced a detailed report on September 18, 2020. Until Gabbard’s declassification, the document remained highly confidential, stored in a restricted vault at CIA headquarters. Fox News, which first reported on the revelations, obtained the partially redacted document, described as a “fully-sourced limited-access investigation report.”
The report scrutinizes the creation of the 2017 ICA, a high-profile document ordered by Obama and overseen by senior intelligence officials, including then-CIA Director John Brennan. According to the findings, the ICA was drafted by a small team of five CIA analysts, led by a single principal drafter, under tight time constraints. The rushed process limited coordination within the CIA and broader intelligence community, preventing thorough review or challenges to the report’s conclusions.
The committee uncovered that Brennan pushed for the inclusion of a now-debunked dossier alleging ties between Trump and Russia, despite knowing it relied on unverified “internet rumor.” The ICA also drew on 15 intelligence reports, three of which were deemed unreliable due to unclear origins, potential bias, or implausible claims. These flawed reports underpinned the ICA’s assertion that Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton. Notably, the report highlights that only a single, vague sentence from one of these substandard sources was used to suggest Putin’s preference for Trump, with no direct evidence to support the claim.
Further, the investigation found that the ICA ignored or selectively cited intelligence that contradicted the narrative of Russian interference to elect Trump. For instance, reliable reports and Russian actions suggested alternative motives for Putin’s behavior, but these were sidelined. A key piece of intelligence came from a close Putin associate who told investigators that Putin was indifferent to the election’s outcome, having expressed concerns about the weaknesses of both Trump and Clinton. The report also notes that some intelligence indicated Russia anticipated a Clinton victory, believing her positions were predictable and manageable.
Despite warnings from two senior CIA officers that there was no direct evidence of Putin’s intent to help Trump, the Obama administration proceeded with the ICA’s publication just weeks before Trump’s inauguration. The report criticizes the ICA for omitting significant context and failing to explore plausible alternative explanations for Russia’s actions, rendering the claim that Putin sought to elect Trump “implausible—if not ridiculous,” according to the committee.
The declassified findings raise questions about the integrity of the 2017 ICA and the motivations behind its release, pointing to Obama’s direct influence in shaping a narrative that lacked robust evidence. Gabbard’s decision to make the report public has reignited discussions about the handling of intelligence during the 2016 election.
