By Warren P. Strobel
The Trump administration pushed to unveil a highly classified document on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election after an intense behind-the-scenes struggle over secrecy, which ended in late July when Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a minimally redacted version of the report, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.
Subscribe for unlimited access to The Post
You can cancel anytime.
Subscribe
Gabbard, with the blessing of President Donald Trump, overrode arguments from the CIA and other intelligence agencies that more of the document should remain classified to obscure U.S. spy agencies’ sources and methods, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, like others interviewed for this report, because of the matter’s sensitivity.
Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Attorney General Pam Bondi have released a slew of intelligence and law enforcement reports over the last month that they claim — without evidence — prove that spy agencies’ finding that Moscow intervened in the 2016 presidential contest to help Trump is a “hoax” concocted by the Obama administration.
The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into Obama officials, and Bondi has ordered a grand jury to potentially hear evidence in the case.
The document Gabbard ordered released on July 23 is a 46-page report stemming from a review begun in 2017 by majority Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee. It takes issue with U.S. intelligence agencies’ finding earlier that year that Russian President Vladimir Putin developed a preference for Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton and aspired to help him win the election.
Multiple independent reviews, including an exhaustive bipartisan probe by the Senate Intelligence Committee, have found that Putin intervened in part to help Trump. Two former CIA officials who led the intelligence agencies’ assessment told The Washington Post they stood by their sourcing and analysis.
The House report is the most sensitive document the Trump administration has yet released, and details of how its publication occurred have not been previously reported.
The document contains multiple references to CIA human sources reporting on Putin’s plans. Such sources are among the agency’s most closely guarded secrets. After the report was completed in 2020, it was considered so sensitive that it remained in storage at the CIA rather than on Capitol Hill.
Democratic lawmakers and former U.S. intelligence officials have objected to how the Trump administration released the report, saying it could imperil future intelligence-gathering on threats against the United States.
“I almost felt like I was going to get in trouble for having read that document,” Larry Pfeiffer, a former senior CIA and White House official, told the podcast “SpyTalk.” “Sources and methods could be easily inferred in almost every instance. … I don’t know if I’ve seen a document of that sensitivity so lightly redacted.”
“The desperate and irresponsible release of the partisan House Intelligence report puts at risk some of the most sensitive sources and methods our Intelligence Community uses to spy on Russia and keep Americans safe,” Sen. Mark R. Warner of Virginia, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s ranking Democrat, said in a statement. “And in doing so, Director Gabbard is sending a chilling message to our allies and assets around the world: the United States can no longer be trusted to protect the intelligence you share with us.”
One person familiar with how the report was released said it was first subjected to multiple reviews that included career intelligence officials and lawyers at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
But as the Trump administration prepared to release the report publicly, there were multiple versions of it circulating, some with more redactions to protect sensitive information, current and former U.S. officials said. Gabbard, who has led the administration’s effort to relitigate the 2016 campaign, pushed to release as much as possible, they said.
“CIA put forward their proposed redactions and edits to the document,” said a person familiar with the process. Gabbard “has greater declassification authority than all other intelligence elements and is not required to get their approval prior to release.”
Trump then approved the publication of the version from Gabbard’s office “with minimal redactions and no edits,” this person said.
Until recently, Trump had soured on Gabbard over several public controversies involving her and her office, and twice this year he publicly disputed her and the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment of the state of Iran’s nuclear program.
It is unclear exactly how Trump gave his approval, or if he examined the competing versions of the House report beforehand. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
A CIA spokesperson said Ratcliffe “strongly supports” the release of the report.
It is unclear what additional details CIA officials wanted to remain classified. Along with intelligence derived from human sources, or spies, the House document makes reference to material collected by electronic eavesdropping as well as information gathered by foreign governments and shared with the CIA.
The Republican House report was compiled at a time of unusually deep partisan tensions on the House Intelligence Committee, chaired at the time by then-Rep. Devin Nunes, who currently works as CEO of Trump’s social media company, Truth Social. Former Democratic officials described the report as a one-sided document that does not accurately reflect U.S. intelligence officials’ work to unravel Russia’s election interference.
The report has long been something of a political football. On July 2, the current chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Arkansas), wrote a letter to Trump arguing for its release. Crawford told Trump he had written a letter to Ratcliffe in March seeking the physical return of the report from CIA custody to his committee but had not received a reply. Ratcliffe later ordered that the report be handed over.
I feel like Vietnam will come to regret this.