Barry Zulauf, the intelligence community’s analytic ombudsman, filed a 14-page report with the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2021. Its target was the handling of intelligence on the 2020 election. Its most quoted line was about China: analysts there “appeared hesitant to assess Chinese actions as undue influence or interference.”
The Washington Examiner reported on January 7, 2021 that Zulauf tied some of that hesitancy to disagreement with Trump administration policy. Analysts, in this reading, held back because they feared their work would end up supporting policies they opposed. Zulauf described the problem as politicization “from below.”
The catch is what the report did not say. Zulauf acknowledged he had “no evidence to support” the idea that analysts deliberately played down the China threat for political reasons, WION reported a day later. He put the gap down to “different collection and analysis rhythms and interpretations.” That is a finding about mindset and process. It is not a finding that Beijing ran an influence operation.
Pressure from above
The report was just as pointed about the top of the chain. Zulauf wrote that senior leaders “watered down” conclusions about Russia so they would look “not too controversial,” while amplifying the China threat. Analysts told him the published version of an August assessment, after changes demanded by then-intelligence director John Ratcliffe to add China warnings, was an “outrageous misrepresentation of their analysis.”
Not everyone in the community agreed. Some officials said the August statement drew a fair distinction: Russia took steps to harm Joe Biden’s candidacy, while China only hoped Biden would win and did not act in the same way.
DC Report, writing on February 18, 2021, focused on the Russia side. Zulauf found “a long story arc of, at the very least, perceived politicization of intelligence” from March 2020 onward. He said actions by the office of the director of National Intelligence “had the effect of politicizing intelligence, hindering objective analysis or injecting bias.” Richard Grenell, acting director in 2020, delayed a memo in what Zulauf called “politically motivated editing.” Ratcliffe, his successor, “disagreed with the established analytic line on China” and insisted the analysis was missing Chinese electoral influence.
Russia analysts, meanwhile, held their ground: “there was clear and credible evidence of Russian election influence activities.”
Zulauf said his inquiry was “conducted in response to IC complaints regarding the election threat issue.” He also warned that the “polarized atmosphere has threatened to undermine the foundations of our Republic, penetrating even into the Intelligence Community.”
Sources
- Intelligence analysts downplayed Chinese election influence to avoid supporting Trump policies, inspector finds
- Trump administration politicized some intelligence on foreign election influence, report finds
- Internal Intelligence Community Report Names Grenell and Ratcliffe for 'Politicalization' of Analysts' Findings
