Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Have intelligence agencies investigated claims of kompromat linking Putin to Trump or Clinton?
Executive summary
U.S. and allied intelligence agencies have examined allegations of Russian “kompromat” and influence tied to Donald Trump for years, including work that informed the Steele dossier and formal U.S. intelligence assessments about Kremlin efforts to help Trump in 2016 (see Steele dossier background and intelligence findings) [1] [2]. Reporting and later commentary continue to debate whether decisive evidence of kompromat exists and whether agencies have fully investigated claims that Putin holds compromising material on Trump; some outlets and former intelligence figures treat the possibility as plausible while others stress the underlying claims were “unverified” raw reporting [1] [3] [4].
1. What U.S. intelligence actually looked into: the Steele dossier and follow-up
Christopher Steele, a former MI6 Russia expert, produced a series of memoranda in 2016 alleging Russia had “compromised” Trump and that Putin favored Trump; Steele’s work was produced for Fusion GPS and later published as the Steele dossier, which U.S. agencies treated as “raw intelligence” that warranted checking but not as established fact [1]. The dossier’s authorship and funding — Orbis for Fusion GPS, which was paid by Clinton’s campaign and the DNC — is documented and became part of how U.S. agencies and media characterized and vetted the material [1].
2. Intelligence community assessments about Russian aims in 2016
The U.S. intelligence community concluded Russia conducted a broad operation to influence the 2016 election and that the operation was ordered by Putin; Senate and intelligence reviews concluded the Russian campaign aimed to help Trump and hurt Clinton, and those assessments framed why agencies pursued contacts and allegations related to Trump’s ties to Russia [2]. Those formal findings focused on Kremlin intent and operational interference; they did not produce a definitive public finding that Putin personally “owned” kompromat on Trump in the sense of a provable blackmail file — the dossier’s specific allegations were characterized as unverified by many outlets [1] [2].
3. What the CIA and FBI reportedly investigated in 2016–2017
Contemporaneous reporting showed that the CIA regarded claims of Kremlin-held compromising material as credible enough to note, and that a multi-agency task force including the FBI investigated contacts between Trump associates and Russian actors [3]. At the same time, agencies and later public reviews cautioned that particular raw claims needed corroboration and that some allegations in the public dossier remained unverified [1] [3].
4. Post-2016 developments and continuing disputes
Subsequent public claims and leaks — including later allegations by ex-intelligence figures and retrospective reporting — have kept the kompromat question alive. Some commentators and former officials now say the idea that the Kremlin has compromising material “seems increasingly plausible,” reflecting continued debate in media and opinion pages [4]. Other reporting emphasizes the limits of available evidence and stresses that specific dossier claims were “unverified” when published [1] [3].
5. Alternative angles: Clinton, Epstein, and competing narratives
Reporting about other high-profile figures (e.g., Hillary Clinton and ties to Jeffrey Epstein or probes that mention Clinton-related matters) has been used politically to draw parallels or distract from Russia-focused inquiries; major outlets have covered separate investigations and denials but available sources here do not claim U.S. intelligence opened the same type of kompromat probe linking Clinton to Putin as was focused on Trump [5] [6]. The materials provided do not show intelligence agencies publicly asserting a comparable kompromat relationship between Putin and Clinton (available sources do not mention a formal kompromat probe tying Putin to Clinton).
6. How to read competing claims and agendas
The Steele dossier was paid work originating in private opposition research and later treated by some as intelligence; that funding and provenance influenced how governments, media and political actors framed its credibility [1]. Opinion pieces and former intelligence officers’ public claims can reflect personal views or agendas; for example, later commentators argue plausibility while intelligence reviews emphasize caution — readers should weigh provenance, corroboration, and motive in each source [1] [4].
7. Bottom line and reporting limits
U.S. intelligence agencies investigated Kremlin interference in 2016 and examined allegations that Russia sought to aid Trump and may have compiled compromising material; the dossier catalyzed scrutiny but its specific allegations remained “raw” and not fully corroborated in public reporting [1] [2]. Available sources here do not provide a definitive public intelligence confirmation that Putin holds kompromat on Trump in the precise terms alleged in some accounts, nor do they document an analogous kompromat investigation linking Putin to Hillary Clinton (p1_s3; [2]; available sources do not mention a formal kompromat probe tying Putin to Clinton).