What other allegations were included in the Steele dossier besides golden showers?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Steele dossier was a 2016 compilation of memos alleging a “well-developed conspiracy” of contacts and cooperation between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives, plus salacious personal claims such as that Russia had compromising sexual material on Trump; many dossier claims remained unverified and some have been discredited in later reporting and legal findings [1] [2] [3]. The dossier also contained allegations of secret contacts between Trump associates and Russian officials, that Putin ordered cyberattacks to benefit Trump, and later memos targeting Trump attorney Michael Cohen — all of which Steele and others circulated to journalists and U.S. officials during 2016–17 [4] [1].
1. What the dossier broadly alleged: campaign-Russia coordination and active measures
The core thrust of Christopher Steele’s memos was that there existed “a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between Trump campaign figures and the Russian government, and that Moscow ran an influence campaign ordered personally by Vladimir Putin — including cyberattacks aimed to damage Hillary Clinton and boost Trump [1]. The dossier presented that narrative as sourced to unnamed Russian-connected informants and described secretive contacts between campaign associates and Russian officials [1] [4].
2. The sexual-compromise claim often summarized as “golden showers”
Among the most widely publicized and salacious allegations was that Russia possessed compromising material on Trump — described as video and sexual conduct involving sex workers in a Moscow hotel — which was summarized in media accounts as a “blackmail tape” or “compromising material” [2] [3]. Reporting and legal battles later showed many such claims were never corroborated [2] [3].
3. Allegations about Michael Cohen and other individuals
Steele’s later memos — especially a December memorandum added after the initial 16 reports — focused heavily on allegations about Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen, claims Cohen denied; Steele’s December memo reported new information mainly targeting Cohen [4]. The dossier also named specific figures alleged to have ties to Russian intelligence or to have contacts with Trump associates; some named persons later sued or disputed the dossier’s contents [4] [5].
4. The dossier’s role in official and legal processes
Portions of the dossier were given to the FBI and some elements were used in part to seek FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign aide, a fact that has become central to debates over how intelligence and opposition research were handled [6]. Oversight and watchdog reviews later criticized FBI and intelligence-community handling of dossier material and found errors or omissions in some official uses; critics have described the dossier as “discredited” or “bogus,” while other commentators emphasize it was tangential to the broader Russia inquiries [7] [8] [2].
5. Legal fallout and judgments about accuracy
Courts and journalists have treated dossier claims unevenly: some individuals mentioned in the dossier pursued defamation suits; judges in the UK have addressed specific claims about sex parties and “perverted sexual acts” in litigation involving Trump and Steele, with courts noting many dossier allegations were never substantiated [3] [9] [10]. Reporting by major outlets concluded the dossier contained unverified and potentially unverifiable allegations and that many items remained unconfirmed [1] [2].
6. Competing narratives: opposition research vs. intelligence product
Supporters of Steele and some intelligence figures have defended the dossier as “raw intelligence” that merited further investigation rather than finished proof; Steele himself characterized the memos as starting points for inquiry [4]. Critics, including legal and political actors, call the dossier an opposition-research product that was politicized and in many respects debunked, and conservative commentators and some watchdogs describe it as central to a smear of Trump [8] [11] [7].
7. Limits of available reporting and what we cannot assert
Available sources in this set document the dossier’s major allegations — campaign ties to Russia, Putin-ordered influence efforts, alleged compromising material and sexual conduct, and memos about Michael Cohen — and they document disputes over verification and official use [1] [2] [4]. Available sources do not mention some specific alleged scenes, names, or corroborating evidence beyond what Steele circulated; if you seek confirmation of any particular detail not covered above, not found in current reporting.
Contextual takeaway: the dossier mixed high-stakes allegations about Russian interference and contact with the Trump orbit with unverified, sensational personal claims; its treatment by journalists and intelligence agencies sparked sustained legal and political controversy because many assertions remained uncorroborated even as they influenced official inquiries and public debate [1] [6] [3].