How was the Steele dossier compiled and who were Christopher Steele's sources?
Executive summary
The Steele dossier was a series of raw-intelligence memoranda — 16–17 reports totaling about 35 pages — compiled by former MI6 officer Christopher Steele for Fusion GPS between June and December 2016; Steele described them as “raw intelligence — not established facts” [1] [2]. The reporting relied on a network of anonymous Russian- and Europe‑based contacts and at least one primary intermediary, analyst Igor Danchenko, whose role and credibility became a major focus of later investigations and litigation [3] [4] [5].
1. What the dossier actually was: a string of raw memos, not a finished report
The product commonly called the “Steele dossier” was not a single polished paper but a set of memoranda Steele wrote from June to December 2016 — produced at roughly one-per-week cadence and described by Steele as unverified, potentially unverifiable, and intended as starting points for further investigation rather than proven findings [1] [2]. Different sources and outlets characterize it as 16–17 memos totaling 33–35 pages [2] [6].
2. Who hired Steele and how the work was commissioned
Steele’s work was subcontracted to his Orbis business by Fusion GPS, a U.S. opposition-research firm that had been retained first by Republican clients and later by an attorney connected to the Clinton campaign and the DNC to continue research on Trump; Fusion GPS then hired Steele in June 2016 to use his overseas Russian expertise [6] [7]. Fusion’s funding history and the political pedigree of the commissioning clients fueled intense scrutiny and competing narratives [6].
3. How Steele gathered material: networks, intermediaries and human sources
Steele relied on his “long-cultivated network” of contacts in Russia and Europe and on human reporting that he characterized as raw and often anonymous; he passed some of the memos to U.S. and British intelligence when he judged them important [2] [8]. Investigations and commentary later focused on the fact that much of the dossier traces to third‑hand hearsay, and that many named claims remained uncorroborated [3] [9].
4. The central role of Igor Danchenko and debates over sourcing
Reporting and legal probes identified Igor Danchenko — a Russia analyst who supplied material to Steele — as a principal conduit for several of the dossier’s allegations; Danchenko was later charged with lying to the FBI but was acquitted at trial, and his role became central to disputes over whether the dossier was grounded in credible first‑hand reporting or in hearsay [5] [4]. Some commentators and official reviewers concluded Steele relied heavily on low‑level, third‑hand sources [9].
5. How agencies and journalists treated the material: caution, use, and controversy
Intelligence bodies treated the memos as one element among others. Steele himself shared memos with U.S. and British agencies and with journalists; newsrooms that eventually published or referenced the material faced criticism for publishing unverified claims [1] [6]. Oversight and inspector‑general reviews, legal rulings, and later reporting produced sharply divergent assessments: defenders call the dossier “raw intelligence” meriting further inquiry, while critics say large portions were unverified or false [3] [9].
6. Legal and political fallout that shaped perceptions of sources
The dossier’s provenance and the anonymity of many informants fed multiple lawsuits, congressional probes, and a sustained political campaign to discredit or defend Steele and his network; courts and judges handled publication and libel claims with differing outcomes, and subsequent declassification and litigation episodes intensified concern that naming or declassifying Steele’s material put sources at risk [10] [11].
7. Competing assessments and limits of the public record
Public sources here differ: some reviewers and outlets (e.g., Lawfare, The Hill) stress that the dossier functioned as raw intelligence and note elements that later looked plausible, while others and certain inspector‑general summaries say much of it was hearsay from low‑level sources [3] [9]. Available sources provided to this briefing document do not fully enumerate every named or unnamed source Steele used; detailed source identities largely remain protected, redacted, or litigated in courts and FOIA releases [12] [10].
Bottom line: what we can say with confidence
Christopher Steele, working for Fusion GPS and paid via political clients, produced a set of raw intelligence memos in 2016 built from his networks and intermediaries (notably Igor Danchenko) and passed them to intelligence agencies and journalists; those memos were unverified at the time, relied heavily on anonymous human reporting, and have since been the subject of conflicting official and media evaluations [6] [2] [5]. Available sources do not mention a complete, public roster of Steele’s individual human sources.