CIA Director John Ratcliffe just dropped a bombshell, exposing the shoddy tradecraft behind a key 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment, as Just the News reports. His scathing review, released on this week, rips into then-CIA Director John Brennan for including the unverified, anti-Trump Steele dossier in the report. It’s a stark reminder of how narrative-driven agendas can taint intelligence work.
Ratcliffe’s eight-page “lessons learned” document, mostly declassified, dissects the 2016 assessment claiming Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The review, ordered by Ratcliffe and conducted by the CIA’s Directorate of Analysis, found that the dossier’s inclusion violated basic intelligence principles, thus undermining the longstanding Democrat claim that Vladimir Putin wanted Trump to win.
The 2016 assessment, crafted under intense time pressure, was a mess of procedural flaws and limited data sharing. Senior CIA and FBI leaders, including Brennan and James Comey, pushed hard to include the Steele dossier despite objections. Ratcliffe tweeted on June 24, 2025, calling the process “atypical & corrupt” under Brennan’s politically charged leadership.
Brennan’s insistence on the dossier ignored warnings from seasoned CIA Russia experts. Two senior leaders from the CIA’s Russia mission center argued it failed basic tradecraft standards. Yet Brennan, fixated on a consistent story, brushed off their concerns, as the review bluntly notes.
The dossier ended up as a two-page addendum with a disclaimer that it didn’t shape the report’s conclusions. But a sneaky reference in the main body propped up the shaky claim that Putin “aspired” to help Trump. This sleight of hand, the review says, gave unverified gossip undue weight.
Former FBI brass, including Comey and Andrew McCabe, tied their participation in the assessment to the dossier’s inclusion. They lobbied for days to weave it into the main text, facing pushback from the NSA and others. The review calls this a blatant compromise of analytical integrity.
The assessment’s “high confidence” that Putin aimed to boost Trump didn’t hold up. Then-NSA Director Mike Rogers, sticking to “moderate confidence,” pointed out the lack of solid sourcing. The review agrees, noting the judgment leaned heavily on one CIA report while ignoring conflicting data.
Some intelligence suggested Putin was ambivalent about the election’s outcome, but this was conveniently left out. The review faults the authors for not addressing uncertainties in their sources. Rogers later testified in May 2017 that the “aspire” claim lacked the robust evidence of other judgments.
Two CIA Russia mission center leaders emailed Brennan in December 2016, calling the “aspire” judgment weakly supported. They warned it wasn’t even necessary for the report’s core findings. Brennan, undeterred, prioritized his narrative over their expertise, the review reveals.
The dossier’s inclusion risked the entire assessment’s credibility, warned the CIA’s then-deputy director for analysis in a 2020 email. Brennan’s response? He doubled down, writing that the dossier “warrants inclusion” despite its flaws.
By January 2017, Brennan, Comey, and Rogers briefed President-elect Donald Trump on the election meddling findings at Trump Tower. Comey lingered to whisper about the dossier’s salacious allegations, a move that reeks of political theater. The review underscores how such antics eroded trust in intelligence work.
The dossier, largely declassified in 2020, peddled baseless claims of Trump-Kremlin collusion. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 2023 report found no such conspiracy, and John Durham’s later probe slammed the FBI’s dossier handling. Yet in 2016, Brennan and Comey treated it as gospel, the review laments.
Durham’s 2023 report uncovered a Clinton campaign plan, greenlit by Hillary Clinton herself in July 2016, to tie Trump to Putin. Brennan briefed Obama and Biden on this scheme, and the CIA flagged it to the FBI in September 2016. The review doesn’t say if this influenced the dossier’s push, but the timing raises eyebrows.
A 2020 Senate report defended the 2016 assessment, claiming no political pressure, while a 2018 House report criticized its tradecraft. The truth, as Ratcliffe’s review lays bare, is that Brennan’s dossier obsession skewed a critical intelligence product. It’s a lesson in keeping agendas out of analysis.
Ratcliffe’s report is a wake-up call for an intelligence community too often swayed by progressive narratives. The Steele dossier’s inclusion wasn’t just a mistake -- it was a deliberate choice to prioritize politics over facts. Americans deserve better from those tasked with guarding the truth.
