Revisiting the Russia “hoax” was never about finding the truth

DCIA Ratcliffe gave Trump what he needed: distractions and a ready-made soundbite.

(C-SPAN screengrab)

Just before the July 4th weekend, CIA Director John Ratcliffe released a declassified review of how the U.S. intelligence community reached its conclusions in 2016 about alleged Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election. The 2016 document—known as an intelligence community assessment, or ICA—determined that Russia had interfered in the election to harm Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, and help Donald Trump, the Republican nominee. The 2016 finding was a major moment: the president-elect was being linked by the intelligence community to a hostile foreign influence campaign.

Ratcliffe’s decision to revisit the assessment reflected a long-standing suspicion among Trump appointees that the 2016 report reflected a politicized process—one they vowed to purge from the intelligence community. In principle, a reevaluation is a valuable lessons-learned exercise to refine analytic tradecraft; every assessment has its flaws. But, in practice, this release appears to serve a different purpose: to reassert the “Russia hoax” narrative, despite years of bipartisan investigations that had already examined and affirmed the original findings.

Shortly after publishing the review, Ratcliffe posted a statement on X: “All the world can now see the truth,” he wrote. “Brennan, Clapper and Comey manipulated intelligence and silenced career professionals—all to get Trump.” He then referred John Brennan and James Comey, the former directors of CIA and FBI, respectively, to the FBI for criminal investigation.

One problem: Ratcliffe’s characterization bears little resemblance to the actual findings in the declassified document. It makes no claim that intelligence was falsified, no assertion that conclusions were manipulated, and no suggestion that political bias drove the judgments.

Ratcliffe’s accusations also ignore the public record. In 2020, the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a comprehensive review of the 2016 assessment. It found no evidence of politicization, affirmed the validity of the ICA’s judgments, and concluded that differences among agencies were reasonable, transparent, and openly debated. In short, the issues Ratcliffe now claims to be “exposing” were resolved, with bipartisan agreement, five years ago.

Much of what Ratcliffe now portrays as corrupt or suspicious is, in fact, routine. The claims of interference in the investigation are projection at best—and deliberate distortion at worst.

But the density of reporting, partisan framing, and selective interpretations have made this anything but clear. So, for Contrarian readers, here’s what matters, what doesn’t, and why this latest spectacle tells us more about the present than it does about 2016.

First, the basics. What was the 2016 ICA?

The ICA was a coordinated report produced by the CIA, FBI, and the National Security Agency (NSA) in the final days of the Obama administration. It examined Russia’s suspected efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. It concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin had directed a covert influence campaign, aimed at harming Clinton and, by implication, helping Trump. The CIA and FBI said Putin wanted Trump to win. The NSA was slightly more cautious but generally agreed.

That assessment was tasked on Dec. 6 and delivered less than 30 days later. It was the product of career analysts, built on validated intelligence, and subjected to a review process grounded in codified tradecraft standards. Yes, it was fast-tracked. That was deliberate: President Barack Obama wanted the findings on the record before the Trump inauguration.

So, what did Ratcliffe do?

Ratcliffe, a Trump loyalist, former member of Congress, and Director of National Intelligence in the first Trump administration, ordered an after-action audit focused on whether the 2016 ICA met analytic tradecraft standards, which he summarily declassified. It is not clear why he asked for this lessons-learned review, but he did say its declassification was intended to reveal the “politically charged environment that triggered an atypical analytic process.”

The review’s opening paragraphs adopt language and emphasis—highlighting “the ICA’s most debated judgment” and invoking White House motives—that reflect a political framing atypical of tradecraft reviews. It suggests external influence on what should have been an impartial process—and marks the first of several hypocrisies on the part of Ratcliffe.

But, as noted earlier, the declassified report doesn’t say what he claims it does. It doesn’t say the conclusions in the 2016 ICA were politically driven. And it certainly doesn’t deny that Russia sought to help Trump. On the contrary, it affirms that the assessment was built with “strong adherence to tradecraft standards” and that its “analytic rigor exceeded that of most IC assessments.”

The review notes that the process was accelerated, that senior leaders were unusually involved, and that some judgments—particularly regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intent—were based on less-than-ideal sourcing. In other words: There were procedural imperfections but no compromise of analytic integrity.

I spent years inside the intelligence community, including as executive editor of the President’s Daily Brief. I’ve seen how assessments are built, challenged, and reviewed under real-world constraints.

The flagged concerns—compressed timelines, senior involvement, analytic inference—aren’t evidence of misconduct. They’re common features of intelligence work, especially on high-stakes, time-sensitive tasks.

The criticism that more time and a wider circle of analysts might have produced stronger conclusions is fair. But that’s true of nearly any intelligence product. Time is a luxury in this field. It’s rarely the norm. The President’s Daily Brief—the gold-standard analytic product—often goes from concept to delivery in under 24 hours.

The fact that the 2016 ICA was prepared under a compressed timeline was not ideal. But it was not suspicious either; it was responsive to the moment. Ratcliffe, of all people, should know how often speed is a condition of the work.

Consider his own recent precedent. The infamous National Intelligence Council’s ICA on the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was first delivered to DNI Tulsi Gabbard on Feb. 26. The tasking date isn’t public, but all indications suggest it was produced in a similarly short window, especially considering Trump took office only a month earlier, and no foul was called there.

Senior involvement in shaping intelligence products is also routine. The President’s Daily Brief process, for example, includes multiple layers of review to ensure analytic rigor and objectivity. But changes are not made without the knowledge and concurrence of the original authors.

Ratcliffe was directly involved in commissioning, reviewing, and declassifying this new report. If Brennan’s engagement in 2016 is now framed as “politicization,” what does that make Ratcliffe’s actions?

But the Trump administration’s hypocrisy goes further. After reviewing the Venezuela ICA, the DNI’s chief of staff on April 3 reportedly said the Feb. 26 assessment needed “some rewriting” and analytic adjustments “so this document is not used against the DNI or POTUS.” Four days later, the assessment remained unchanged. Within weeks, the senior officials who oversaw the process were removed from their positions.

Now that’s politicization.

Including a summary of the Steele dossier—an unverified and now widely discredited collection of allegations—in the 2016 ICA’s appendix was a mistake. But it played no role in shaping the assessment’s conclusions and was explicitly labeled as uncorroborated. The FBI advocated for its inclusion; CIA analysts objected. What should have been an afterthought has become a centerpiece of conspiracy in the hands of critics.

Another criticism in the review: The judgment that Putin wanted Trump to win relied heavily on a single source. That might be technically accurate. But the judgment was openly debated at the time, and the agencies were transparent about their differing levels of confidence. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later concluded that the debate was appropriate—and found no evidence of political pressure or manipulation.

So, what is the takeaway. Ratcliffe’s tradecraft review was a process critique, not a substantive refutation of the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

But the real issue isn’t the Radcliffe review—it’s how it’s being weaponized.

We’ve seen this playbook before. In April, Trump claimed that Kilmar Abrego Garcia had “MS-13” tattooed on his knuckles—a detail drawn from a doctored photo that had been circulating online. When questioned about it, Trump brushed aside the correction. The facts didn’t matter. The visual served a purpose.

It doesn’t matter that what Ratcliffe claims the review says is untrue. That was never the point. It was to hand Trump a ready-made line: “CIA concluded this was a witch hunt.” It’s false—but it’s usable. It redirects attention from current scandals, fills a news cycle, and revives a grievance that still animates Trump’s base.

And now, based on that distortion, John Brennan and James Comey find themselves under federal scrutiny, not because the evidence demands it, but because the narrative does.

For Trump, that’s a win.

Brian O’Neill, a retired senior executive from the CIA and National Counterterrorism Center, is an instructor on strategic intelligence at Georgia Tech. His Safehouse Briefing Substack looks at what’s ahead in global security, geopolitics, and national strategy.

---