Veteran investigative journalist Catherine Herridge has reported that newly declassified intelligence documents, coupled with interviews from a senior member of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard’s investigative team, indicate that some intelligence officials might have restricted information provided to policymakers, including President Donald Trump, during the 2020 election period. These revelations center on intelligence assessments concerning alleged efforts by China to influence the U.S. election.
Herridge discussed these documents during an appearance on NewsNation’s “Katie Pavlich Tonight,” where she reviewed records related to the handling of intelligence reporting. The documents, released in connection with President Donald Trump’s recent primetime address, include internal communications that shed light on how intelligence was processed. Among these is a November 20, 2020, email, cited by Herridge, from a strategic intelligence analyst stating that officials had “deliberately massaged our one pending PDB (President’s Daily Brief) to avoid any direct links to the election.”
This newly released material, according to Herridge, aligns with earlier whistleblower allegations that claimed intelligence related to China’s influence activities was either downplayed or altered before it reached senior government officials. Herridge also detailed conversations with a senior member of DNI Gabbard’s Director’s Initiatives Group (DIG), an internal team tasked with reviewing intelligence community practices across several significant investigations.
“In the last week, I’ve been speaking with a very senior member of Director Gabbard’s investigations team known as the DIG,” Herridge stated during her interview. She further elaborated that this source described a perceived pattern within certain segments of the intelligence community. According to Herridge, the source indicated that some officials believed it was their responsibility to filter information before it reached policymakers. The source alleged that there was a conviction among some officials that they needed to safeguard what was termed a “globalist view,” thereby limiting information they believed could potentially influence policy decisions.
This alleged approach, Herridge reported, was not confined solely to China-related intelligence. The source claimed it extended to other politically sensitive matters, including information related to the Hunter Biden laptop story. The DIG, under DNI Gabbard’s leadership, has been examining a range of subjects, including the origins of COVID-19, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, Havana Syndrome, and domestic surveillance practices. Herridge noted that Gabbard’s team has previously identified what it characterized as analytical shortcomings in certain intelligence assessments, citing instances of selective exclusion of information and an over-reliance on limited sourcing.
Further supporting her reporting, Herridge discussed records involving Nikki Floris, a former senior FBI counterintelligence official. Herridge stated that Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) confirmed to her that Floris had provided him and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) with a defensive briefing in August 2020. This briefing, according to Senator Johnson, was related to potential Russian disinformation and was believed to be connected to congressional inquiries regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop. Herridge highlighted that the timing of this briefing coincided with ongoing debates surrounding intelligence concerning China’s activities.
Herridge also reported that some declassified documents contained handwritten notes and editing marks that referenced domestic political considerations. These notes, she indicated, expressed concerns that certain intelligence could potentially affect President Trump’s reelection campaign. She added that some intelligence reports detailing China’s influence operations were either excluded from the President’s Daily Brief or had their confidence assessments altered before being presented.
The declassified records and interviews reviewed by Catherine Herridge, therefore, raise additional questions about the methodologies employed in preparing and presenting intelligence assessments to senior U.S. officials during the critical 2020 election period, suggesting potential systemic issues in information flow within the intelligence community.
