What specific allegations did the Steele dossier make about Trump and Russia?
Executive summary
The Steele dossier was a 2016 series of memoranda by former MI6 officer Christopher Steele alleging a range of contacts, coordination and compromising material linking Donald Trump, his campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 U.S. election; Steele described the memos as “raw intelligence” and many of the dossier’s specific claims remained unverified or contested by later probes [1] [2]. Major headlines from the dossier included allegations of a “well-developed conspiracy” of cooperation between Trump aides and Russia, that Russia held kompromat (salacious material) on Trump, and that various campaign figures engaged in secret contacts or payments tied to Russian operations [1] [2] [3].
1. What the dossier said in plain terms: conspiracy and cooperation
The dossier’s core claim was that there existed a “well-developed conspiracy” of cooperation between Trump campaign members and Russian operatives to influence the 2016 election in Trump’s favor, presented across 17 memoranda compiled June–December 2016 [1] [4]. It named specific lines of alleged cooperation — ranging from coordination on messaging and cyber-operations to direct contacts between campaign figures and Kremlin-linked actors — and framed these as part of an organized effort by Russian intelligence to aid Trump [1] [5].
2. Kompromat and salacious allegations: blackmail material in Moscow
One of the most explosive claims was that Russian operatives had gathered “embarrassing material” on Trump — commonly summarized as tapes of salacious sexual activity in a Moscow hotel — which could be used to blackmail him; Steele warned U.S. officials about such derogatory files and the dossier’s memos were noted in intelligence briefings to President Obama and Vice President Biden [1] [2] [6].
3. Named actors and alleged interactions: meetings, payoffs, and “liaisons”
The dossier identified individuals it said were central to Russian ties, alleging contacts or roles for figures including Carter Page, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, and it claimed Cohen served as a “secret liaison” with Russian leadership and that payments and deniable cash arrangements had been discussed to conceal Russian assistance [7] [1]. It also referenced the June 2016 Trump Tower-related outreach that later became public through other reporting and testimony as an instance of Russia-linked offers of support [7] [8].
4. How U.S. authorities used the dossier and what investigations found
The FBI received Steele’s reporting and in part used it to support surveillance applications such as FISA warrants targeting Carter Page, and Steele’s information was briefed to senior U.S. officials in early January 2017 [9] [1]. Subsequent investigations and reviews — including the Justice Department Inspector General and Special Counsel probes — concluded that many dossier allegations were uncorroborated, identified significant problems in how some dossier material was handled, and found that key sources were unreliable or had misled investigators [10] [2] [9].
5. Corroborations vs. failures to corroborate: a mixed record
Reporting and later probes established that some strands of the dossier paralleled real events — for example, actual contacts between Trump associates and Russians and Russian influence operations targeting the election — but the dossier’s sensational specifics and many named-source claims did not withstand scrutiny and remained unverified or were discredited in part [7] [2] [8]. Special counsel and congressional work referenced some overlaps with known activity but did not treat the dossier as definitive proof of an organized conspiracy as presented in the memos [2] [10].
6. Sources, politics and the dossier’s limits
The dossier was commissioned by Fusion GPS while it was being funded by political clients, and Steele himself characterized the memos as raw, unverified intelligence rather than established fact — a limitation emphasized by critics and later legal and investigative findings that flagged unreliable sub-sources and potential exposure to disinformation [1] [4] [5]. Legal battles, Durham-era indictments and public debate further underscored both the dossier’s role in prompting inquiry and the political controversies about its provenance and evidentiary value [11] [2] [12].