.@POTUS has trusted me with helping to end weaponization of US intelligence. Today's report underscores that the 2016 IC Assessment was conducted through an atypical & corrupt process under the politically charged environments of former Dir. Brennan & former FBI Dir. Comey. https://t.co/VXBp3oy6EM
— John Ratcliffe (@DCIARatcliffe) July 2, 2025
CIA Director John Ratcliffe Declassifies Internal Tradecraft Review of 2016 Election ICA to Promote Analytic Objectivity and Transparency
Earlier this year, CIA Director John Ratcliffe tasked Agency career professionals with decades of experience to conduct a lessons-learned review of the procedures and analytic tradecraft employed in the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) conducted shortly after the 2016 election. Today, Director Ratcliffe declassified the results of this review.
The tradecraft review identified multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the 2016 ICA, such as a compressed timeline, uneven access to compartmented information, marginalization of the National Intelligence Council, and excessive involvement of agency heads. The review notes that adhering to established analytic processes and rigorous tradecraft is essential to ensure credibility, objectivity, and accuracy of CIA analysis.
Director Ratcliffe declassified this review in order to promote analytic objectivity and transparency. “Agency heads at the time created a politically charged environment that triggered an atypical analytic process around an issue essential to our democracy,” said Director Ratcliffe. “Under my watch, I am committed to ensuring that our analysts have the ability to deliver unvarnished assessments that are free from political influence.”
The lessons-learned review can be viewed here.
Breakdown of the full report:
Overview: The document reviews the tradecraft and procedural anomalies in the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian election interference.
ICA Origins Context
The ICA was developed amid conflicting public statements about Russia's role in the 2016 election.
Media leaks suggested definitive conclusions before the assessment was completed, creating anchoring bias.
President Obama directed a comprehensive review of Russian activities related to the election.
Procedural Concerns
The review identified multiple procedural anomalies, including a compressed timeline and excessive agency head involvement.
The timeline for drafting the ICA was less than a week, with only two days for formal coordination.
Stakeholders felt "jammed" by the timeline, leading to a focus on language precision over substantive edits.
Rushed Timeline Justified?
The rushed timeline raised questions about potential political motives behind the White House's tasking.
A more measured approach could have deflected questions about bias and adhered to standard practices.
Compartmentation Challenges
Uneven access to compartmented information hindered collaboration and contributed to analytic differences.
Key intelligence was restricted, limiting the ability of analysts to engage in robust debate.
Agency Head Involvement
Unusual senior involvement in the ICA's development compromised analytic rigor and limited coordination.
The National Intelligence Council was marginalized, deviating from standard procedures for IC assessments.
Prejudicial Workforce Message
A note from Brennan to CIA analysts indicated a consensus before the ICA was coordinated, potentially stifling debate.
The decision to include the Steele Dossier undermined the credibility of the ICA's key judgment.
Tradecraft Concerns
Procedural anomalies affected the tradecraft applied to the judgment that Putin "aspired" to help Trump win.
The ICA's tradecraft was generally robust, but specific issues were identified, including confidence levels and source transparency.
Strong Tradecraft Examples
The ICA sourced 173 reports from CIA, NSA, and FBI, demonstrating strong adherence to tradecraft standards.
The review found that the "aspired" judgment did not merit a "high confidence" level due to limited sources.
Lessons Learned
The review highlighted the importance of adhering to established processes and tradecraft standards.
Key lessons include the need for sufficient time for analysis, equitable access to information, and careful consideration of confidence levels.
Replies