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 to investigate Donald Trump's ties to Russia?
Executive summary
Fusion GPS was first hired in 2015 by the conservative website The Washington Free Beacon to do opposition research on Donald Trump; later, in April 2016, the law firm Perkins Coie — representing the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) — retained Perkins Coie’s outside counsel who then engaged Fusion GPS to continue and expand that research, ultimately leading Fusion to hire former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to compile the dossier [1] [2] [3]. Congressional testimony and reporting show Fusion kept client names confidential in many settings, but the House Intelligence Committee learned and disclosed that The Washington Free Beacon and Perkins Coie (on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC) were clients [1] [3].
1. What the documents and reporting say about who paid Fusion GPS
Multiple contemporaneous news investigations and watchdog summaries report a two-stage client history: an initial 2015 engagement by The Washington Free Beacon to research Republican primary candidates (including Trump), followed by a 2016 retainer funneled through Perkins Coie on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, who paid Fusion GPS to perform expanded opposition research during the general-election period [1] [2] [3]. InfluenceWatch and The Washington Post’s reporting both cite Perkins Coie paying roughly $1.02 million to fund research that led Fusion to hire Christopher Steele [2] [3].
2. What Fusion’s principals told Congress and what committees later disclosed
Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson testified in closed-door sessions to congressional committees and supplied tens of thousands of documents; at those hearings Fusion initially kept client identities confidential. Committees later revealed that Fusion’s client list included The Washington Free Beacon and Perkins Coie acting for the DNC and Clinton campaign — though the public release of those names was uneven and politically contested [1] [3].
3. Disputes and alternate narratives about other funders or Russian ties
Some Republican lawmakers and commentators have alleged Fusion was paid by Russian interests while compiling the Steele dossier, pointing to Fusion’s unrelated earlier work for Russian-linked clients and to testimony by witnesses like Bill Browder to assert Russian funding [4] [5]. Fusion and journalists have rejected the simplest linkage that Russia paid for the dossier project; fact-checking cited by reporting noted “no evidence” that the Russian government paid for Fusion’s Trump research at the same time it worked on separate Russian clients [1] [4]. Fusion also worked on separate matters (for example litigation involving Russian clients) that critics cite to suggest conflicts of interest, but the public record in these sources distinguishes that separate work from the Perkins Coie-funded dossier project [1] [3].
4. Why the distinction between clients matters politically
The financing trail matters because it frames whether the dossier was opposition research paid for by U.S. political actors or intelligence product influenced or financed by foreign actors. Reporting in The Washington Post and other outlets documents that Perkins Coie — representing U.S. political clients — financed the Steele material, while critics point to Fusion’s unrelated Russian clients and contacts (e.g., meetings involving Natalia Veselnitskaya) to argue a different narrative; both strands have been amplified along partisan lines [3] [5] [6].
5. Limits of the available reporting and what’s unresolved in these sources
Available sources here document who contracted Fusion for the Trump research (The Washington Free Beacon initially; later Perkins Coie acting for the DNC and Clinton campaign) and report Fusion’s separate work for Russian-associated clients, but they do not provide a single, uncontested paper trail tying Russian government funds to the Steele dossier work — fact-checkers and some reporting state no such evidence was shown [1] [4]. Congressional fights over document releases and redactions have left some details politically disputed and variably public [1] [3].
6. How different outlets and actors frame the story
Mainstream investigative outlets like The Washington Post and Reuters/longform reporting emphasize the Perkins Coie-to-Fusion funding pathway and Fusion’s hiring of Christopher Steele [3] [7]. Conservative outlets and some Republican senators emphasize Fusion’s other Russian-related work and witness claims that suggest Russian influence or funding; senators such as Chuck Grassley publicly pressed for proof of Russian payments and published statements arguing that Fusion’s work overlapped with projects tied to Russian interests [4] [5]. These competing framings reflect distinct political agendas: defenders of the dossier stress documented U.S.-side payments and investigatory rigor, while critics seek to delegitimize the product by tying the firm to Russian clients.
7. Bottom line for readers
The contemporaneous public record in these selected sources shows Fusion GPS was hired first by The Washington Free Beacon in 2015 and later retained via Perkins Coie on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC in 2016 to research Donald Trump — and that Fusion then contracted Christopher Steele to produce the dossier [1] [2] [3]. Allegations that Russia directly paid for the dossier are contested in the reporting cited here; fact-checking and some Senate materials say no conclusive evidence of Russian government payment for the dossier work has been produced in these sources [1] [4].