Former CIA Director John Brennan is facing renewed legal scrutiny amid allegations that he may have committed perjury during his 2017 testimony before Congress.
The core issue: whether Brennan misled lawmakers about the use of the discredited Steele dossier—an opposition research document funded by the Clinton campaign and compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele—as part of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
During sworn testimony on May 23, 2017, Brennan told Congress that the Steele dossier “wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment.” That statement is now under direct challenge.
According to a declassified CIA review released last week and first highlighted by The New York Post’s Miranda Devine, Brennan not only pushed for the inclusion of the Steele material in the ICA, but did so over the objections of senior CIA Russia analysts. These experts warned the dossier lacked basic credibility and violated standard tradecraft principles.
A December 29, 2016, email from then-Deputy Director for Analysis David Cohen to Brennan urged caution, warning that using the dossier could risk “the credibility of the entire paper.” Despite this, Brennan reportedly responded in writing: “My bottom line is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report.”
The internal CIA assessment notes that Brennan appeared more influenced by the dossier’s alignment with prevailing theories—namely, that Russia favored Trump—than by legitimate intelligence standards. The report concludes that his insistence on inclusion “undermined the credibility of a key judgment” in the Obama-commissioned ICA.
This stands in stark contrast to Brennan’s public statements. In a 2018 interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, Brennan claimed he first became aware of the dossier in “late summer of 2016” and described only a vague familiarity with it.
If these records hold up, they paint a clear picture of conflicting timelines and testimony. Congressional investigators now face mounting pressure to revisit Brennan’s prior statements. Subpoenas may follow.
Perjury before Congress is a federal offense. If Brennan knowingly misrepresented his role, the legal consequences could be significant. As the reconciliation package is now law and oversight mechanisms shift into full motion, further inquiry appears likely.
No official response has been issued by Brennan or his legal representatives.
