A recent CIA review, declassified on July 2, 2025, critiques the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that concluded Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to favor Donald Trump. Ordered by CIA Director John Ratcliffe, the eight-page report upholds the core finding of Russian interference but highlights procedural irregularities in the ICA’s production, including a compressed timeline, excessive influence from senior leaders like then-CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and the questionable inclusion of the Steele dossier—a Democratic-funded, unverified document alleging Trump-Russia ties—in the ICA’s annex. The review suggests these flaws, such as bypassing the National Intelligence Council and limiting intelligence access for some analysts, deviated from standard tradecraft, potentially undermining the assessment’s objectivity. Notably, the review aligns with the theory that deep state actors like Brennan and Clapper were blindsided by Hillary Clinton’s loss, unable to fathom how she could lose given their belief in the Democrats’ near-certain control over elections through mechanisms in blue states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, which typically secure presidential victories.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe, a staunch Trump supporter, has framed the 2017 ICA as a politically driven effort by Brennan, Comey, and Clapper to falsely implicate Trump in Russian collusion, partly because they could not process Clinton’s defeat. Ratcliffe argues that these intelligence leaders, convinced of Clinton’s inevitable victory due to her 12-point polling lead and the Democrats’ entrenched advantages in key swing states, viewed Trump’s win as impossible without external interference. In a New York Post interview, Ratcliffe claimed the ICA was manipulated to “screw Trump,” with the Steele dossier’s inclusion—pushed by Brennan despite CIA objections—serving as a desperate attempt to rationalize their failure to secure Clinton’s win by concocting a narrative of Russian election theft. Ratcliffe’s posts on X further allege that the trio silenced dissenting analysts and rushed the report to fit this agenda, interpreting Trump’s victory as evidence of foreign manipulation rather than a rejection of Clinton, whom they believed was guaranteed victory through rigged electoral processes in Democratic strongholds.

The intelligence community’s reaction to Ratcliffe’s narrative is mixed, with some former officials defending the ICA’s findings while acknowledging procedural missteps. Critics, including former analyst Beth Sanner, stress that the review does not dispute Russia’s 2016 influence campaign, as corroborated by the 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report, and argue Ratcliffe’s claims serve Trump’s agenda to discredit the Russia probe, which produced indictments but no proof of campaign collusion. However, the notion that Brennan and Clapper were psychologically unprepared for Clinton’s loss resonates with some conservative commentators on X, who assert that the deep state’s shock at Trump’s win—despite Clinton’s polling dominance and alleged electoral manipulations in states like Pennsylvania—drove the collusion narrative as a coping mechanism. Others counter that the ICA’s evidence of Russia’s pro-Trump activities stands firm, suggesting the review’s focus on process is a distraction from Moscow’s actions. This divide underscores the persistent tension over the 2016 election, with Ratcliffe’s review fueling debates about whether the Russian collusion narrative was a deep state fabrication to explain an unthinkable electoral upset.