Which specific claims in the Steele dossier have been independently corroborated or disproven?

1. What has been independently corroborated: narrow facts, not the lurid core

Independent reporting and indictments have corroborated elements of Russia’s active measures and GRU operations referenced in the dossier—most notably the broad fact of Russian intelligence operations and cyberattacks tied to the 2016 election—which intelligence and criminal indictments later established and which commentators say buttress some of Steele’s reporting at a high level ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Carter Page claims: contacts confirmed, allegations about conspiratorial deals not

Claims that campaign adviser Carter Page had contacts with Russian-linked figures and expressed interest in engagement with Russia align with Page’s own testimony and investigative findings that he had multiple Russia-related contacts; however, the dossier’s more specific allegations about offers or quid pro quo promises remained uncorroborated in Mueller-era filings and were judged unproven by oversight reviews ^{[4] [3]}.

3. Michael Cohen and business dealings: partial, parallel corroboration

Some reporting about Michael Cohen’s activities in 2016—journalistic accounts and investigatory threads—appear to run parallel to Steele’s notes, and a few details about outreach and business-seeking in Russia have been described as corroborative in part; Lawfare and other analysts stress these items “buttress” Steele’s reporting to an extent but do not fully verify the dossier’s most explosive claims ^{[1] [4]}.

4. The “pee tape” and sex-party allegations: no credible corroboration

The dossier’s most salacious item—the alleged kompromat sexual conduct involving Trump—was not corroborated by investigative reporting or by the inspector general’s probe, which found the claim to be rumor rather than confirmed fact and concluded corroboration was essentially zero for that allegation ^{[5] [3]}.

5. The FBI and inspector general findings: uncorroborated majority and errors

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s December 2019 report and related accounts concluded many dossier items “could not be corroborated” and that certain allegations were inaccurate or inconsistent with FBI findings; follow-up reviews, including commentary on FBI investigative spreadsheets, indicated a large share of the dossier’s assertions were judged wrong, nonverifiable, or open-source in nature ^{[3] [6] [5]}.

6. The Durham and later assessments: inability to corroborate substantive allegations

Subsequent probes and reporting, including the Durham review and summaries captured in public sources, state that the FBI “was not able to corroborate a single substantive allegation contained in the Steele Reports,” a finding cited by critics as decisive in discrediting the dossier’s operational claims even while debate continues over interpretation ^[2].

7. Competing narratives and implicit agendas: why consensus is elusive

Advocates for Steele point to the dossier’s broad alignment with confirmed Russian meddling and argue some details have held up or remain unproven rather than disproven, while critics and several oversight products emphasize failures of verification and FBI missteps—an outcome complicated by the dossier’s origin as opposition-funded opposition research and by political actors who used selective elements to advance partisan narratives ^{[1] [7] [8] [9] [10]}.

8. Bottom line: specific corroborations are limited; many claims remain unproven or contradicted

In short, the dossier’s general picture—that Russia sought to influence 2016 and some campaign associates had Russia contacts—fits subsequent public findings, but specific, sensational allegations in the document have not been reliably corroborated and several key assertions were judged unverified or inconsistent by official reviews; where reporting asserts corroboration, it is often narrow and stops short of validating the dossier’s central conspiratorial claims ^{[1] [3] [2] [5] [6]}.