The CIA just did something you seldom see in Washington.
It admitted that its own intelligence analysis fell short of basic standards and had to be pulled back.
According to a February 20 press release, CIA Director John Ratcliffe ordered the official retraction or substantive revision of 19 intelligence products that “did not meet CIA and IC analytic tradecraft standards” and “failed to be independent of political consideration.”
In its own words, the CIA conceded the following:
"Today, CIA Director John Ratcliffe ordered the official retraction or substantive revision of 19 CIA intelligence products that did not meet CIA and IC analytic tradecraft standards and failed to be independent of political consideration. These products were identified by the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB), which conducted an independent review of hundreds of finished CIA analytic reports produced over the past decade. An internal review led by Deputy Director Michael Ellis agreed that they did not meet the high standards the American people expect from CIA’s elite analytic workforce."
That language is bureaucratic, but it is explosive. “Failed to be independent of political consideration” means politics seeped into analysis that was supposed to be insulated from it.
And note the timeframe: “over the past decade.” That period includes Barack Obama’s second term, the 2016 election cycle, and the transition into the Trump administration. That was not a neutral era for the intelligence community. It was the era when intelligence analysis intersected directly with electoral politics and when the line between assessment and narrative became dangerously thin.
The 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was ordered in the final days of the Obama administration and released just before Donald Trump took office. It shaped the national conversation. It fueled years of investigations. It cast a cloud over an incoming president before he had even assembled his Cabinet.
Now we know that nearly twenty intelligence products from that same broad timeframe failed basic tradecraft standards and were not independent of political considerations. When analysis that guides presidents and shapes public understanding is compromised, that is not a clerical oversight. It is an institutional breakdown that reflects the leadership and culture of the period that produced it.
The CIA has retracted several intelligence reports for failing to meet tradecraft standards, which is a polite way of saying they were garbage. What the link carefully avoids telling us is whether the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, ordered by Obama in his final days to… https://t.co/k2kvkC16ay
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) February 21, 2026
The reaction online was immediate and pointed.
Director Ratcliffe described the retractions this way:
“The intelligence products we released to the American people today — produced before my tenure as DCIA — fall short of the high standards of impartiality that CIA must uphold and do not reflect the expertise for which our analysts are renowned. There is absolutely no room for bias in our work and when we identify instances where analytic rigor has been compromised, we have a responsibility to correct the record. These actions underscore our commitment to transparency, accountability, and objective intelligence analysis.”
Strip away the diplomatic phrasing, and the meaning is unmistakable. Analytic rigor was compromised. Bias entered products that were presented to policymakers and the public as objective.
For years, skepticism about politicization inside the intelligence community during the Obama and early Trump years was treated as illegitimate. The 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was framed as unimpeachable. Yet credibility is not restored by declaring something sacred. It is restored by applying the same standards as everything else.
If political considerations compromised nineteen intelligence products from the same era, then the most politically consequential intelligence document of that period cannot simply be presumed clean.
The 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was ordered in the final days of the Obama administration, under leadership appointed during his presidency, at a moment when intelligence analysis collided directly with electoral politics. That assessment shaped public perception, fueled years of investigations, and framed the legitimacy debate around an incoming president before he ever took office.
Read More: No DEI in CIA: Ratcliffe Rescinds 19 Politicized 'Intelligence' Reports
That is not a footnote. It is a defining event.
If analytic standards were compromised elsewhere during that same timeframe, then the assessment that altered the trajectory of American politics deserves the same scrutiny now being applied to lesser reports. Accountability does not mean retracting what is convenient. It means examining what was consequential.
The CIA has admitted that bias entered its analytic work over the past decade. That decade includes the Obama years. Restoring credibility requires more than acknowledging errors. It requires demonstrating that no document, no matter how politically sensitive, is shielded from review.
If the standards failed once, they must be tested everywhere.
Anything less is not reform. It is containment.
CIA retracts 19 reports, raising scrutiny of Obama-era intelligence and 2017 assessment.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member