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.
Who hired Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson during the Trump-Russia probe?
Executive summary
Fusion GPS was originally hired in 2016 by a conservative outlet, the Washington Free Beacon, to do opposition research on Donald Trump during the Republican primary; later that year Fusion GPS — via the law firm Perkins Coie — was retained by the Democratic National Committee (DNC)-aligned campaign and the Clinton campaign through that law firm to continue research, which led to hiring former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to prepare the so‑called “dossier” [1] [2] [3]. Glenn Simpson has repeatedly testified and said his firm was contracted first by the Free Beacon and then by lawyers for Democratic clients; Republican critics have disputed aspects of the timeline and funding but Democratic and mainstream accounts corroborate the two distinct hires [1] [4] [5].
1. How the chain of hires is described in public reporting
Multiple mainstream reports and released transcripts describe a two‑step hiring: Fusion GPS did opposition research on Trump for the conservative Washington Free Beacon during the primary, then Fusion was retained later in 2016 by attorneys (Perkins Coie) representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC to continue research, and Fusion engaged Christopher Steele for his dossier work [1] [2] [3].
2. Glenn Simpson’s sworn testimony and committee releases
Senate and House committee transcripts of Glenn Simpson’s interviews were released and widely reported; those transcripts and reporting form the primary public record about who hired Fusion and why. Time, Rolling Stone and other outlets summarized that Simpson and Fusion commissioned Steele’s work while under contract after being retained by lawyers working for Democratic‑aligned clients [1] [6] [2].
3. What the Reuters and other fact‑based outlets emphasized
Reuters and similar outlets emphasized Simpson’s testimony that a separate “voluntary source” inside Trump’s orbit alerted the FBI before the Steele dossier reached the Bureau — a point used to counter claims that the dossier alone triggered investigations — and reiterated that Fusion’s work and its timeline were the subject of Congressional scrutiny [7] [8].
4. How political actors interpreted the hires — competing narratives
Democratic‑leaning coverage framed Fusion’s retainer by lawyers for the Clinton campaign and the DNC as standard opposition research routed through counsel, while conservative critics presented Fusion and Steele’s work as politically motivated and sought to highlight Fusion’s earlier ties to conservative funders (the Free Beacon) and alleged conflicts [4] [5]. National Review and The Hill offered analysis criticizing or defending Fusion’s role depending on editorial stance [5] [4].
5. What remains contested or unclear in the sources
Available sources document the sequence of hires and that Steele prepared the dossier for Fusion, but they also show ongoing partisan disputes over motivations and the dossier’s reliability [1] [6]. Sources do not settle every factual dispute raised by critics (for example, whether particular pieces of reporting were the decisive triggers for FBI applications) — some claims about FBI reliance or improper warrants are discussed and contested in testimony but are not decisively adjudicated in the cited reporting [7] [9].
6. Legal and reputational consequences covered in reporting
Reporting notes lawsuits and accusations tied to the dossier and Fusion’s work — including defamation claims by named Russian‑linked figures and Congressional probes into whether Fusion or associates should have registered under foreign‑agent rules — showing the hires produced both investigative products and legal/political backlash for Fusion and Simpson [10] [4].
7. Why this matters: transparency, advocacy and political context
The hire sequence matters because it illustrates a routine pattern in U.S. politics: opposition research can be commissioned across the partisan spectrum and routed through law firms; that routine research can become a flashpoint when subsequently used or publicized. Journalistic and Congressional attention has centered on provenance, methods and whether intelligence agencies used Fusion’s or Steele’s reporting in official actions — issues covered in the released testimony and mainstream reporting [2] [1] [7].
If you want primary documents next, the released Senate and House transcripts of Glenn Simpson’s interviews are cited in these reports and are the closest contemporaneous sources for exact wording and timeline [1] [6].