CIA Director Ratcliffe "strongly supports" Gabbard declassification of sensitive documents, agency says
Gabbard's office publicly released a report drafted in 2017 by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee on Russian activity during the 2016 election, sparking concerns about risks to sensitive sources and methods. She said Wednesday that the document contained additional evidence that Obama administration officials "manufactured" a narrative about Russia's actions that was designed to undercut President Trump.
Gabbard also declassified a swath of documents related to the 2016 election last Friday.
"CIA Director Ratcliffe strongly supports the public release of HPSCI's report, which was the result of a process initiated by CIA and led by DNI Gabbard," the CIA spokesperson said, using an abbreviation for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
"This effort reflects Director Ratcliffe's continued commitment to elevating the truth and bringing transparency to the American people and would not have been possible without his directive to return it to the committee," the spokesperson added.
The House report, which the committee's Republican staff finalized in December 2017 but updated through 2020, was so highly classified that it was stored at CIA headquarters before Ratcliffe sent it back to the House panel and ultimately toward public release, CBS News has learned.
The committee made it available to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI, according to an ODNI official with knowledge of the declassification process. Gabbard would normally have been required to consult with the intelligence agencies that had contributed sensitive information to the report before declassifying it, but Mr. Trump — who made the decision to declassify the document with relatively few redactions — was not under the same obligations, the official said.
The report was written in large part by then-committee staffer Kash Patel, now the FBI director, according to one current and one former official. It contained discussions about raw intelligence from a CIA source the agency had recruited in Russia, and questioned whether analysts had sufficiently taken into account the source's motivations, proximity to Putin or potential bias towards Mr. Trump.
The CIA source's information helped inform the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, or ICA, which concluded in part that Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian government aspired to help then-candidate Donald Trump's election chances by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. The U.S. exfiltrated a CIA asset from Russia in 2017, CBS News previously confirmed.
That judgment within the ICA has vexed Mr. Trump for years and has been a key focus of Gabbard's recent declassifications.
Gabbard has claimed the documents released by her office reveal a "treasonous conspiracy" by Obama-era officials to undermine Mr. Trump during his first term by alleging Russian efforts to help him win in 2016. Gabbard says she has forwarded the records to the Justice Department as part of a criminal referral.
Obama's spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush called Gabbard's accusations "bizarre" and "ridiculous" earlier this week.
The ICA's judgement about Russian actions in 2016 was also the focus of a recent CIA internal review under Ratcliffe. Released earlier this month, that review contained far fewer of the sensitive details included in the House Republicans' report and said the judgment on Putin's preference for Trump should have been issued with moderate rather than high confidence. But it said it did not dispute the "quality and credibility" of the information.
The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Mark Warner, called the release of the House committee's report by Gabbard "desperate and irresponsible." He said it put highly sensitive sources at risk and could disincentivize potential spies from working for the U.S. government.
"Tell me how you're going to recruit somebody to, in one of our adversarial nations, maybe work with us, if that information is carelessly thrown around," Warner said to reporters on Wednesday.
Ratcliffe, who previously served on the House Intelligence Committee as a congressman from Texas, has said one of his primary objectives as CIA director would be to reinvigorate intelligence collection from human sources. Current and former national security officials have said intelligence provided by human sources, known as HUMINT, has dropped off in recent years, as surveillance technologies have become more sophisticated and ubiquitous.
Human sources — especially those with proximity to world leaders in adversarial countries like Russia, China and North Korea — are especially prized and especially rare, given how risky, if not life-threatening, it can be for them to provide information to a foreign intelligence agency. Information provided by human sources typically remains classified for decades, often up to 75 years, according to government classification rules.
At his Senate confirmation hearing in January, Ratcliffe said the recruitment of human spies by the CIA is "not where it needs to be."
"I do want to spend time looking at that," he said.
The CIA has recently released recruitment videos in multiple languages with the aim of enticing potential human sources in Iran, China and Russia to come forward.Alan He and
James LaPorta
contributed to this report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
5 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Government shutdown talk is starting early ahead of a difficult funding fight in Congress this fall
WASHINGTON — It's become tradition. Congressional leaders from both major political parties blame each other for a potential government shutdown as the budget year draws to a close. But this year, the posturing is starting extraordinarily early. The finger-pointing with more than two months to go in the fiscal year indicates the threat of a stoppage is more serious than usual as a Republican-controlled Congress seeks to make good on its policy priorities, often with no support from the other political party. Democratic leadership from both chambers and the two panels responsible for drafting spending bills met behind closed doors recently to discuss the strategy ahead. The leaders emerged demanding that Republicans work with them but were careful to avoid spelling out red lines if Republicans don't. 'We are for a bipartisan, bicameral bill. That's what always has been done,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. 'The onus is on the Republicans to help us make that happen.' On the Republican side, lawmakers describe the Democrats as itching for a shutdown. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Schumer had threatened a shutdown should Republicans pass a bill to roll back $9 billion in public broadcasting and foreign aid funds. Republicans subsequently passed those cuts. 'It was disturbing to see the Democratic leader implicitly threatening to shut down the government in his July 'Dear Colleague' letter, but I'm hopeful that he does not represent the views of Senate Democrats as a whole,' Thune said. The federal government is operating on a full-year continuing resolution that provided about $1.7 trillion in spending for defense and non-defense programs. The funding expires Sept. 30. President Donald Trump requested a comparable amount for the coming fiscal year, but the Republican proposed dramatically overhauling how that money is distributed to include more for defense and border security and significantly less for health, education, housing and foreign assistance. So far, the House has approved two of the 12 annual spending bills. The Senate has yet to approve any, but those bills that have advanced out of the Senate Appropriations Committee are enjoying bipartisan support while the House bills are generally advancing out of committee on party line votes. This week, the Senate is expected to consider the appropriations bill to fund military construction projects and the Department of Veterans Affairs, generally one of the easier spending bills to pass. One or two others could get added to the package. Congress got off to a late start on the funding process. Republicans prioritized Trump's tax and spending cut bill. Most lawmakers agree Congress will need to pass a stop-gap measure before Sept. 30 to avoid a shutdown and allow lawmakers more time to work on the full-year spending measures. Democrats overwhelmingly opposed this year's funding bill that expires in two months. But in the end, Schumer and nine Democratic colleagues decided a government shutdown would be even worse. They voted to allow the bill to proceed and overcome a filibuster, giving Republicans the ability to pass it on their own on a final vote. Schumer took considerable heat from progressives for his strategy. House Democratic leadership issued a statement at the time saying 'House Democrats will not be complicit.' And members of his own caucus publicly expressed disagreement. 'If we pass this continuing resolution for the next half year, we will own what the president does,' said Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. 'I am not willing to take ownership of that.' Some liberal groups threatened to hold protests at various events Schumer was planning to promote a new book, and some of those events ended up being postponed due to security concerns. The Democratic frustrations have only grown stronger in the ensuing months. First, the Democrats watched the Trump administration slow-walk or block hundreds of billions of dollars from going out in part through the work of its Department of Government Efficiency. Then they watched as Republicans passed Trump's big tax and spending cut bill without any Democratic votes. Finally, they watched as Republicans this month canceled $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting funds when much of it had been previously agreed to on a bipartisan basis. Meanwhile, Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, declared that the appropriations process 'has to be less bipartisan.' Democrats complain that much of the work taking place in the House has been a waste of time, since those partisan bills have no chance of getting 60 votes in the 100-member Senate. 'At this point in time, why have appropriations if they can just unilaterally through rescissions whack it all away?' said Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill. 'I think what you're seeing is more frustration than I've ever witnessed.' Republicans control all the levers of power in Washington. That could make it harder to blame Democrats for a shutdown. But in the end, any bill will need some Democratic support to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. 'Our concern is that from their standpoint, they want to have a shutdown,' Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said of Democrats. '… The Democrats see it as a way to derail the agenda that we're putting through.' Sen. John Barrasso, the No. 2-ranked Republican in the Senate, said Republicans were determined to hold votes on the 12 spending bills. He said that Schumer 'had unilaterally shut down the appropriations process' in previous years by not holding such votes, moving instead to negotiate directly with GOP leadership in the House and then-President Joe Biden's Democratic administration on an all-encompassing spending package. 'If Democrats walk away from this process again, simply to protect wasteful Washington spending,' Barrasso said, 'they will be the ones sabotaging the Senate and shutting down the government.'
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
With AI plan, Trump keeps chipping away at a foundational environmental law
When President Donald Trump rolled out a plan to boost artificial intelligence and data centers, a key goal was wiping away barriers to rapid growth. And that meant taking aim at the National Environmental Policy Act — a 55-year-old, bedrock law aimed at protecting the environment though a process that requires agencies to consider a project's possible impacts and allows the public to be heard before a project is approved. Data centers, demanding vast amounts of energy and water, have aroused strong opposition in some communities. The AI Action Plan Trump announced last week would seek to sweep aside NEPA, as it's commonly known, to streamline environmental reviews and permitting for data centers and related infrastructure. Republicans and business interests have long criticized NEPA for what they see as unreasonable slowing of development, and Trump's plan would give 'categorical exclusions' to data centers for 'maximum efficiency' in permitting. A spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality said the administration is 'focused on driving meaningful NEPA reform to reduce the delays in federal permitting, unleashing the ability for America to strengthen its AI and manufacturing leadership.' Trump's administration has been weakening the law for months. 'It's par for the course for this administration. The attitude is to clear the way for projects that harm communities and the environment,' said Erin Doran, senior staff attorney at environmental nonprofit Food & Water Watch. Here's what to know about this key environmental law, and Trump's effort to weaken it: What is NEPA and why does it matter? NEPA is a foundational environmental law in the United States, 'essentially our Magna Carta for the environment,' said Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, another environmental group, referring to the 13th century English legal text that formed the basis for constitutions worldwide. Signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies proposing actions such as building roads, bridges or energy projects to study how their project will affect the environment. Private companies are also frequently subject to NEPA standards when they apply for a permit from a federal agency. In recent years, the law has become increasingly important in requiring consideration of a project's possible contributions to climate change. 'That's a really important function because otherwise we're just operating with blinders just to get the project done, without considering whether there are alternative solutions that might accomplish the same objective, but in a more environmentally friendly way,' Park said. But business groups say NEPA routinely blocks important projects that often taken five years or more to complete. 'Our broken permitting system has long been a national embarrassment,' said Marty Durbin, president of the U.S. Chamber's Global Energy Institute. He called NEPA 'a blunt and haphazard tool' that too often is used to block investment and economic development. The White House proposal comes as Congress is working on a permitting reform plan that would overhaul NEPA, addressing long-standing concerns from both parties that development projects — including some for clean energy — take too long to be approved. What's happened to NEPA recently? NEPA's strength — and usefulness — can depend on how it's interpreted by different administrations. Trump, a Republican, sought to weaken NEPA in his first term by limiting when environmental reviews are required and limiting the time for evaluation and public comment. Former Democratic President Joe Biden restored more rigorous reviews. In his second term, Trump has again targeted the law. An executive order that touched on environmental statutes has many agencies scrapping the requirement for a draft environmental impact statement. And the CEQ in May withdrew Biden-era guidance that federal agencies should consider the effects of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions when conducting NEPA reviews. Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court in May narrowed the scope of environmental reviews required for major infrastructure projects. In a ruling involving a Utah railway expansion project aimed at quadrupling oil production, the court said NEPA wasn't designed 'for judges to hamstring new infrastructure and construction projects.' 'It's been a rough eight months for NEPA,' said Dinah Bear, a former general counsel at the Council on Environmental Quality under both Democratic and Republican presidents. John Ruple, a research professor of law at the University of Utah, said sidelining NEPA could actually slow things down. Federal agencies still have to comply with other environmental laws, like the Endangered Species Act or Clean Air Act. NEPA has an often overlooked benefit of forcing coordination with those other laws, he said. Some examples of cases where NEPA has played a role A botanist by training, Mary O'Brien was working with a small organization in Oregon in the 1980s to propose alternative techniques to successfully replant Douglas fir trees that had been clear-cut on federal lands. Aerially sprayed herbicides aimed at helping the conifers grow have not only been linked to health problems in humans but were also killing another species of tree, red alders, that were beneficial to the fir saplings, O'Brien said. The U.S. Forest Service had maintained that the herbicides' impact on humans and red alders wasn't a problem. But under NEPA, a court required the agency to redo their analysis and they ultimately had to write a new environmental impact statement. 'It's a fundamental concept: 'Don't just roar ahead.' Think about your options,' O'Brien said. O'Brien, who later worked at the Grand Canyon Trust, also co-chaired a working group that weighed in on a 2018 Forest Service proposal, finalized in 2016, for aspen restoration on Monroe Mountain in Utah. Hunters, landowners, loggers and ranchers all had different opinions on how the restoration should be handled. She said NEPA's requirement to get the public involved made for better research and a better plan. 'I think it's one of the laws that's the most often used by the public without the public being aware,' said Stephen Schima, senior legislative counsel at environmental law nonprofit Earthjustice. 'NEPA has long been the one opportunity for communities and impacted stakeholders and local governments to weigh in.' Schima said rolling back the power of NEPA threatens the scientific integrity of examining projects' full impacts. 'Decisions are going to be less informed by scientific studies, and that is one of the major concerns here,' he said. Ruple said uncertainty from NEPA changes and competing opinions on how to comply with the law's requirements may invite even more litigation. 'And all of this will fall on the shoulder of agencies that are losing the staff needed to lead them through these changes,' he said. ___ Follow Melina Walling on X @MelinaWalling and Bluesky @ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Maher: I was wrong that Trump's tariffs would ‘sink the economy'
Bill Maher is acknowledging that the doom and gloom predictions he had about the economy being negatively impacted by President Trump's tariff plan so far haven't panned out. 'I remember I, along with probably most people, were saying at the beginning, by the Fourth of July… the economy was going to be tanked by then,' Maher said in a recent interview on his 'Club Random' podcast with progressive political commentator Brian Tyler Cohen. 'And I was kind of like, well, that seems right to me,' Maher continued. 'But that didn't happen,' the HBO 'Real Time' host said of Trump's trade strategy. 'Now, it could happen tomorrow. I'm just saying — that's reality. So let's work first from the reality of that, not from 'I just hate Donald Trump,' because that's boring and doesn't get us anywhere, and leads you to dishonesty' Maher said. Trump announced 'reciprocal' tariffs on dozens of other countries back in April, before a week later issuing a temporary pause on the hikes for most countries for three months. The 'reciprocal' tariff rate is poised to take effect on August 1. 'The truth is, I don't know what his strategy is,' Maher, a frequent Trump critic, said of the 47th president. 'But look, the stock market is at record highs. I know not everybody lives by the stock market, but I also drive around, I don't see a country in a depression at all,' Maher said with a laugh. 'I see people out there just living their lives. And I would have thought — and I gotta own it — that the cut, that these tariffs were going to f—ing sink this economy by this time, and they didn't,' he said. 'How do we deal with that fact? Because that's the fact,' Maher said.
