Intelligence Officials Reflect on Russian Interference Assessment

The intelligence community from the Obama presidency has recently attempted to address an op-ed from the National Intelligence Director (ODNI) about the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that outlined perceived Russian interference during the 2016 presidential election.

A guest essay in the New York Times by John Brennan, the former CIA Director, along with ex-DNI James Clapper, raises some unresolved questions about the conclusions drawn in the ICA.

Brennan and Clapper revisit the initial findings that identified Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election, suggesting that Russian President Vladimir Putin had a “clear preference” for Donald Trump.

In another development, DNI Tulsi Gabbard has recently declassified a 2020 Congressional investigation, which indicated that Putin had developed a preference for Trump and had aimed to aid in his electoral victory.

Earlier, the intelligence agencies had referred to a Senate committee report from April 2020, which mentioned that analysts did not face political pressure to arrive at predetermined conclusions. However, new claims have emerged, alleging that a senior ODNI intelligence officer warned that a failure to endorse the 2017 ICA could jeopardize promotions.

The op-ed also touched on the controversial Steele dossier, discussing its role in the ICA. Brennan and Clapper asserted that the Steele document was “not utilized as a source” nor factored into the assessment’s conclusions.

The Steele dossier, funded privately and consisting of unverified memos, alleged collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Both Brennan and Clapper acknowledged that these documents were not deemed reliable and that the ICA specifically explained why its mention was not warranted.

A former official noted that the ICA did not make a definitive judgment on Russia’s direct impact on the election outcome. While acknowledging that “Russian influence operations may have affected American viewpoints prior to voting,” the assessment found no concrete evidence that these efforts influenced actual votes.

Brennan and Clapper clarified that the assessment did not suggest any conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. They emphasized that the assessment was solely focused on Russian actions, rather than any potential interactions they had within the U.S.

The essay also omits recent allegations that call into question the motives behind drafting the ICA, despite some documents being released on the matter.

Why wasn’t the same scrutiny applied to the ongoing discussion about Russia’s involvement in the election as to emerging details that implicate Obama? It seems like the truth isn’t a priority.

– Senator Marsha Blackburn (@marshablackburn) July 30, 2025

The original evaluation from 2016 was created to examine possible Russian interference in the presidential election. It was noted that Russia had hacked both the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; however, it was concluded that “foreign adversaries are not capable of conducting successful cyberattacks on election infrastructure.”

ODNI files indicated that these findings were intended for the President’s Daily Briefing, yet they were withheld. A meeting involving Obama and his Cabinet took place on December 9, 2016, concerning the Russian electoral interference, with the term “Potus Tasking” being used.

Various intelligence officials claimed that someone from the intelligence community had leaked false information to the press. Additionally, there was contention around whether to incorporate the Steele dossier into the final report of the ICA.

Brennan and Clapper contended in their essays that the dossier had been included due to submissions from the FBI. Yet, a review from the CIA indicated that there were attempts to include such documents, which were pushed back due to their questionable nature.

The final ICA, which contained information about the Steele dossier, was presented to Obama in early January. A whistleblower report has since suggested that there were threats against analysts’ promotions if they did not support the ICA.

Brennan and Clapper maintained that the original ICA did not accuse Trump of direct collusion with the Russian government; rather, it served as the groundwork for a protracted investigation into what has been labeled as “Russian influence.” An investigation led by former special counsel Robert Mueller concluded that there was no evidence implicating Trump’s campaign in colluding with Russia to affect the 2016 election.