James Clapper tells Congress he will release more evidence of Russian interference in US election and describes ‘multifaceted’ cyber assault

The departing head of US intelligence has publicly defended his analysts against attacks by Donald Trump following their conclusion that Russia interfered in the November election, as the unprecedented dispute between the president-elect and the intelligence services he will soon control broke into the open.

Republicans voice disdain after Trump tweets support for Julian Assange Read more

“There’s a difference between skepticism and disparagement,” James Clapper told a hearing into foreign cyber-threats to the US held by the Senate armed services committee, adding that US intelligence analysts “stand more resolutely” than ever behind their conclusion of “Russian interference in our electoral process”.

The testimony was delivered the day before Clapper and the heads of the CIA, NSA and FBI are expected to present their findings on Russian election interference to Trump.

It is likely to be a highly charged meeting. The president elect has publicly derided the agencies on the issue, and this week cited a denial by Julian Assange of WikiLeaks that his source for Democratic party emails released during the election was the Russian government or “a state party”.

US intelligence agencies have suggested that Russia passed the hacked material to WikiLeaks through intermediaries.

Both Clapper and Admiral Michael Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, expressed concerns about intelligence analysts’ morale after Trump’s perceived disparagement of their work, with Rogers suggesting some may quit.

Clapper said that Russia “has clearly assumed an even more aggressive cyber posture,” and described the cyber-assault on the 2016 election as “multifaceted”.

“Hacking was only one part of it,” he said. “It also entailed classical propaganda, disinformation and fake news.”

Yet neither Clapper nor Rogers offered new evidence for their October conclusion of Russian interference. Clapper promised to release an unclassified report early next week, prepared by the NSA, CIA and FBI, providing additional information for the intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia deliberately hacked the Democratic National Committee in order to aid Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

“We stand more resolutely on that statement than we did on the seventh of October,” Clapper said. Next week’s report will ascribe what Clapper called “more than one motive” to Russian president Vladimir Putin for the assessed electoral interference.

Clapper, who has in the past signaled his discomfort with public intelligence testimony – and who has apologized for previous false statements to the Senate on the scope of domestic NSA surveillance – said he intends to “push the envelope as much as I can on the unclassified version” of the report “because I think the public should know as much of this as possible”.



“They did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort,” Clapper said of the Russians. He demurred from considering their intrusion an “act of war” while under questioning from committee chairman John McCain, saying that would be a “very heavy policy call” not an intelligence judgment, particularly since the US also penetrates foreign digital networks.

“Every American should be alarmed by Russia’s attacks on our nation,” McCain said in his opening remarks. “There is no national security interest more vital to the United States of America than the ability to hold free and fair elections without foreign interference.”

Trump’s confidence in WikiLeaks has shocked and angered intelligence analysts, who consider Assange at the least a hostile actor, and at most a tool of Putin. Clapper and Rogers testified they believe Assange has no credibility. “I don’t think those of us in the intelligence community have a whole lot of respect for him,” said Clapper.

On Thursday morning, Trump denied he was “in agreement” with Assange, tweeting: “I simply state what he states, it is for the people to make up their own minds as to the truth.”

He claimed the media “lies to make it look like I am against ‘Intelligence’ when in fact I am a big fan!”

Asked about morale within the intelligence agencies in the wake of Trump’s comments, Clapper said: “I haven’t done a climate survey, but I hardly think it helps it.” Rogers said the “confidence of our leaders” helps motivate intelligence officers, “and without that confidence, I just don’t want a situation where our workforce decides to walk, because that’s not a good place for us to be”.

The Trump transition team has sought to weaken the impact of the intelligence findings on Russia meddling in the election by highlighting the US intelligence community’s failures over Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. Clapper claimed that US intelligence collection and analysis had vastly improved since then.

“We do make mistakes, but we try to learn from them and makes changes,” he said, insisting that the contrast between US intelligence then and now was “the difference of night and day”.

Amid the background of distrust is a plan Trump is reportedly considering to reorganize the US intelligence apparatus. According to the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the proposal, Trump is considering diminishing the director of national intelligence and returning the CIA directorship, under Trump’s pick Mike Pompeo, to its prime role within the intelligence community. Trump’s incoming press secretary Sean Spicer called the report “100% false”.

Since Trump’s election, some career US intelligence officials have told the Guardian they fear retaliation for their assessment of Russian electoral interference. A leading figure behind the reported reorganization is said to be Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Flynn, the former Defense Intelligence Agency chief whom Clapper fired in 2014. Clapper said the current intelligence leadership has not been consulted on the plan.

While Clapper’s fate is certain, Rogers’ is not. Last month, Barack Obama backed cleaving the NSA from its military twin, the US Cyber Command, which is responsible for defending military data networks and waging online attack. It is unclear whether Trump will take up this initiative, particularly since it would leave Rogers without a job, as the NSA would be led by a civilian. A congressional outcry followed leaks of the potential change in November.



McCain, who has a frosty relationship with Trump, denied the purpose of the hearing was to diminish Trump’s electoral victory.

McCain notably praised the “dedicated” US intelligence analysts and contextualized Russian interference in the election within what he said was a “provocative” US inability to create a deterrent to digital assault.

In a potential preview of partisan responses to the forthcoming report, practically no Republican defended Trump against Clapper’s and Rogers’ assessment.

The exception was Arkansas senator Tom Cotton, who suggested that the president-elect’s pledges to expand defense spending and modernize the US nuclear weapons arsenal meant that, contrary to received wisdom, “perhaps Donald Trump is not the best candidate for Russia”.

His fellow Republican Thom Tillis did not go as far as Cotton, but sought to minimise the significance of Russia’s actions, referring to a Carnegie Mellon University study that said the US had interfered in 81 foreign elections since the second world war, while the Soviet Union or Russia had interfered in 36.

Tim Kaine, the Virginia senator who was former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s running mate during the election, compared Russian interference to the Watergate break-in and implored Congress to “stand in a bipartisan way” against electoral subversion. The GOP congressional leadership is opposing a Democratic push for a special committee to investigate the hack.

McCain ally Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, urged Trump to issue a forceful response to Russia and said: “When one political party is compromised, we all are.”