Involvement of Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok in Crossfire Hurricane investigation?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Andrew McCabe, as FBI Deputy Director, and Peter Strzok, as a senior counterintelligence agent, were centrally involved in the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence probe opened July 31, 2016: reporting and later oversight records indicate Strzok drafted and approved the electronic communication that opened the investigation and McCabe exercised direction and supervisory authority over the team [1] [2] [3]. Inspector General and later accounts show disagreement about motives and procedures — Horowitz found the investigation had a legitimate basis while critics and later probes characterize McCabe and Strzok’s actions as flawed or politicized [4] [5] [3].
1. How McCabe and Strzok show up in the official record
Peter Strzok is identified repeatedly in contemporary reporting and later accounts as the agent who wrote or approved the electronic communication (EC) that opened Crossfire Hurricane and as a lead counterintelligence investigator on the team [1] [2] [5]. Andrew McCabe, who had been Deputy Director since February 2016, appears in memos, emails and testimony as a senior supervisor who directed aspects of the team’s work and was involved in decisions such as bringing certain reporting to the intelligence community’s attention [1] [4] [3].
2. Who says what — competing official and critical narratives
The Justice Department Inspector General’s work and McCabe’s sworn testimony support that the FBI had a legitimate predicate for opening the probe and that Strzok and others acted within investigative channels (McCabe testifying about the Papadopoulos lead and Horowitz’s conclusions as referenced in his testimony) [4]. By contrast, critics and later writers — and the Durham report as cited in reporting — portray Strzok as the author of an EC lacking clear legal justification and McCabe as directing its immediate opening; those sources argue the pair helped run a politicized inquiry [2] [5] [6].
3. The texts, memos and the politics that followed
Private text messages between Strzok and Lisa Page became a focal point for claims of bias; press reporting and congressional exchanges connected those texts to concerns about whether personnel attitudes affected the probe [3] [7]. GOP-led memos (e.g., the Nunes memo) and op-eds have emphasized lines in the record suggesting senior-level involvement — naming Comey, McCabe and Strzok — to allege improper motives [8] [3]. Other accounts stress that messages and operational rushes reflected intense pressure to respond to Russia-related intelligence before the election, not necessarily illegality [3] [1].
4. What investigatory reviews and later probes concluded
Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s publicly-discussed work concluded the FBI had a legitimate reason to open Crossfire Hurricane, even while documenting procedural flaws; McCabe’s public testimony cites the IG’s finding and defends the investigative work [4]. Separately, special review efforts such as U.S. Attorney John Durham’s inquiry produced critical narratives used by outlets and commentators claiming McCabe directed immediate opening and that Strzok wrote the opening EC, although coverage shows disagreement about interpretation and motivation [5] [2].
5. Concrete actions attributed to each man in the reporting
Reporting credits Strzok with drafting and approving the original EC that started Crossfire Hurricane, traveling on investigative trips, and signing off on key interviews and filings [1] [9]. McCabe is described as the supervisory official who directed prompt opening after receiving information from Australian authorities, pushed to include certain reporting in interagency intelligence products, and participated in high-level authorization for investigative steps [2] [9].
6. Limitations, unresolved points, and why sources disagree
Available sources show factual overlap — that Strzok and McCabe were central players — but disagree sharply on intent and sufficiency of legal justification. Some reporting emphasizes IG findings that validate the probe’s opening; other outlets and later reports leaning on Durham’s work characterize the same actions as improper or politicized [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention a single, undisputed judicial or prosecutorial ruling that both men criminally mishandled the opening of Crossfire Hurricane; those conclusions remain contested across reporting (not found in current reporting).
7. Why this matters now
The McCabe–Strzok story remains a Rorschach test for competing political narratives: to critics their documented messages and operational choices prove bias and bureaucratic overreach; to defenders the same records show agents doing urgent counterintelligence work under hard deadlines with imperfect information [3] [4]. Readers should note which sources rely on IG findings (which affirmed a legitimate investigative predicate) and which rely on partisan or later prosecutorial narratives that interpret supervisory direction and agent-authored documents as evidence of misconduct [4] [5].