Former intelligence chiefs are punching back at Trump’s latest salvo. John Brennan and James Clapper, once titans of the CIA and National Intelligence, are calling out what they see as a brazen attempt to rewrite the 2016 Russia investigation’s history. Their rebuttal, sharp yet measured, aims to set the record straight.
Fox News reported that Brennan and Clapper, in a New York Times guest essay, tackled accusations that they cooked the books on Russia’s 2016 election meddling. The Trump administration, led by figures like Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, claims the duo peddled a false narrative about Russia’s interference to boost Trump’s candidacy. This clash reignites old tensions over an election that still divides.
Gabbard, speaking alongside CIA Director John Ratcliffe, pointed fingers at Barack Obama, Brennan, Clapper, and others, alleging they spun a tale of Russian collusion to undermine Trump. Trump himself didn’t mince words, labeling their actions “serious treason.” Such charges demand a response, and the former spymasters delivered.
Brennan and Clapper insist their work was above board. Multiple reviews, including a bipartisan Senate Intelligence report, backed their findings that Russia ran an influence campaign to tilt the 2016 election toward Trump. The claim of a rigged narrative, they argue, is pure fiction.
“That is patently false,” Brennan and Clapper wrote, dismissing the idea they manipulated intelligence. Their essay calls out the Trump administration for distorting history to score political points. It’s a bold stand, but one wonders if it’s enough to sway a polarized audience.
The intelligence community’s assessment never relied on the controversial Steele Dossier, funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC. That document, often a lightning rod for critics, was merely an annex in the most classified version of the report, per FBI instructions. This nuance undercuts claims of a grand conspiracy.
Russia’s influence campaign, while real, didn’t alter actual votes, the duo clarified. “We found no evidence that the Russians changed any actual votes,” they wrote. Yet, they acknowledge Russia’s efforts likely shaped public opinion before voters hit the polls.
The assessment steered clear of claiming “collusion” between Trump’s campaign and Russia. It also avoided referencing publicly known contacts, keeping the focus on Russia’s broader strategy. This restraint, Brennan and Clapper argue, shows their commitment to facts over speculation.
“There was no mention of ‘collusion’ in the assessment,” they emphasized, dismantling Trump’s narrative of a witch hunt. The accusation of treason, they suggest, is a cheap shot meant to inflame rather than inform. It’s a classic MAGA move—bold, brash, and light on evidence.
Brennan and Clapper didn’t stop at defending their work; they went on the offensive. They accused Gabbard and Ratcliffe of politicizing intelligence, a sin for roles meant to stay above the fray. This charge carries weight, given the stakes of national security.
“The real politicization is the calculated distortion of intelligence by administration officials,” they wrote. They warn that denying Russia’s interference risks emboldening future meddling by hostile nations. It’s a plea for bipartisanship, but one that feels optimistic in today’s climate.
Clapper took to CNN, speaking with host Kaitlan Collins, to hammer home his points. He reiterated that years-long reviews validated the Russia investigation’s rigor. His appearance was a calculated move to reach a broader audience, though it’s unclear how many minds he’ll change.
Brennan, meanwhile, expressed confusion over why he’s still a target. “Clueless” about the reasons for renewed scrutiny, he told MSNBC earlier in August 2025. His bafflement might resonate with those tired of endless political score-settling.
The White House, contacted by Fox News Digital, offered no immediate comment on the controversy. Gabbard’s attendance at a Trump cabinet meeting on July 8, 2025, suggests she’s deeply embedded in the administration’s strategy. Her silence here speaks louder than words.
Brennan and Clapper’s essay is a call to arms against what they see as a dangerous revisionism. They urge acknowledgment of Russia’s ongoing threat to elections, a point that should unite both sides but likely won’t. For MAGA supporters, their words may sound like the last gasp of a discredited establishment, yet the facts they cite are hard to dismiss.
