Previously undisclosed review cites internal resistance to elevating intelligence on Chinese activities during the 2020 election.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A newly highlighted intelligence review alleges that some analysts within the U.S. intelligence community withheld or downplayed information regarding Chinese election-related activities in 2020 due to disagreements with President Donald Trump’s policies.
According to a report by Just the News, the findings stem from a January 2021 review conducted by intelligence ombudsman Barry Zulauf, which examined how analysts assessed foreign influence efforts during the 2020 presidential election.
The review, available in a declassified document, concluded that analysts focusing on China were hesitant to characterize Beijing’s actions as election interference and were reluctant to elevate those findings within the intelligence process.
Zulauf wrote that some analysts “appeared reluctant to have their analysis on China brought forward because they tended to disagree with the Administration’s policies,” adding that the sentiment was, in effect, “I don’t want our intelligence used to support those policies.”
Additional reporting by Just the News stated that U.S. intelligence had identified early in 2020 that Chinese actors accessed American voter registration data and used it to conduct analysis related to the election.
The review also cited concerns about inconsistent analytical standards. Zulauf wrote that the intelligence community applied different definitions and thresholds when evaluating Russian and Chinese activities, noting that “the definitional use of the terms ‘influence’ and ‘interference’ and associated confidence levels are applied differently by the China and Russia analytic communities.”
He added that “the terms were applied inconsistently across the analytic community” and that such inconsistencies conflicted with established Tradecraft Standards.
Zulauf later discussed the findings publicly, recounting that one analyst had expressed concern that intelligence might be used in ways they opposed. In remarks referenced in a podcast discussion, he quoted the analyst as saying they did not want their analysis sent to the White House where it could be used by “that vulgarian … to pursue policies toward China with which I personally disagree.”
A separate academic account published in the Journal of Intelligence Conflict and Warfare cited a similar statement, quoting an analyst who said, “I don’t want my intelligence going to the White House where it will be used by that vulgarian in the Oval Office to support policies against China with which I personally disagree.”
The review found that alternative assessments suggesting China engaged in election influence activities faced “considerable organizational counter pressure.” Zulauf noted that an “Alternative Analysis Memo” produced in October 2020 reflected dissenting views within the intelligence community.
Then-Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe supported those dissenting assessments, arguing in a January 2021 letter that the majority position did not fully capture the extent of China’s activities. “I do not believe the majority view expressed by Intelligence Community analysts fully and accurately reflects the scope of the Chinese government’s efforts,” Ratcliffe wrote.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence later released its official intelligence community assessment in March 2021, which concluded that China did not deploy interference efforts intended to change the outcome of the election, though it acknowledged that Beijing gathered information and engaged in activities aimed at shaping perceptions.
A minority assessment within the report, led by the national intelligence officer for cyber, concluded that China took steps to undermine Trump’s reelection prospects through messaging and public statements that could indirectly influence voters.
Separate intelligence reporting indicated that Chinese actors analyzed voter data. An earlier National Intelligence Council assessment stated that Chinese intelligence officials reviewed voter registration data from multiple U.S. states to conduct public opinion analysis.
Other evidence cited in public reporting includes cyber activity attributed to Chinese-linked groups. The Justice Department has charged individuals associated with Chinese government-linked hacking operations, including those tied to the Ministry of State Security and Ministry of Public Security, in cases outlined in federal indictments and related court filings.
Cybersecurity assessments also identified activity by groups such as APT41, which conducted large-scale intrusion campaigns targeting U.S. government systems, as detailed in a threat analysis.
Social media influence operations linked to China were documented by research firms, including campaigns described in analytical reports and follow-up assessments, which noted messaging critical of U.S. policy and political leadership during the election period.
Additional government reporting acknowledged that foreign actors accessed political networks during the election cycle. A joint Justice Department and DHS report stated that while foreign-affiliated actors, including those tied to China, impacted network security, there was “no evidence that any foreign government-affiliated actor manipulated election results or otherwise compromised the integrity of the 2020 federal elections.”
Other intelligence disclosures have included reports of cyber activity targeting election-related entities and broader efforts to influence public discourse. A 2024 assessment noted continued Chinese influence operations aimed at shaping U.S. policy and public opinion in subsequent election cycles.
The Zulauf review and associated documents highlight internal disagreements within the intelligence community regarding how to assess and present foreign influence activities, as well as concerns about consistency in analytic standards and communication to policymakers.
Original article
Comments