Election Document Index
Source guide

Emails on NSA Reporting and the China Section of the 45-Day Election ICA

A substantially redacted 20 November 2020 email chain records internal concerns about how pending NSA reporting and a President’s Daily Brief item would connect China-related intelligence to the election section of the 45-day Intelligence Community Assessment.

Open full source PDF ↗ 8 pages Mixed source text
01

An NSA analyst described removing direct election links from a pending PDB item

An NSA strategic intelligence analyst wrote that the agency had deliberately revised a pending PDB item to avoid direct election links. The analyst also said a larger report had been divided into 13 reports and that versions could be made easier to use in the 45-day assessment if needed; the underlying intelligence and the specific revisions are redacted or absent.

“We have deliberately massaged our one pending PDB to avoid any direct links to the election.”
NSA analyst email
Source: page 5 ↗
“The massive report we have been waiting on has been chopped up into 13 reports”
NSA analyst email
Source: page 5 ↗
“more readily incorporated into the 45-day piece, if needed.”
NSA analyst email
Source: page 5 ↗
02

A cyber intelligence officer raised an allegation of analytic-process problems

A National Intelligence Officer for Cyber relayed that pending reporting had been described to the officer as showing Chinese election influence, but the underlying reporting is not visible and the officer expressly framed that characterization as second-hand. The officer alleged that election connections were being omitted for non-substantive reasons and called the process irregular; these are internal objections, not a final intelligence finding.

“At least that’s how it was described to us.”
NIO-Cyber email relaying a characterization of pending reporting
Source: page 2 ↗
“the IC is deliberately avoiding mentioning a connection to elections for non-substantive reasons.”
NIO-Cyber allegation
Source: page 2 ↗
“this is a highly irregular way to do things”
NIO-Cyber process objection
Source: page 2 ↗
03

Other election-threat officials considered the new information relevant but acknowledged they were in the minority

An election-threat official said the China drafting group appeared to be waiting for the new reporting or PDB before updating the ICA and argued that the product should explain whether the information related to the election. The official avoided preempting the unseen reporting and acknowledged that this view was a minority position.

“I don’t want to preempt what the reports or PDB will say”
Election Threat Analysis email
Source: page 3 ↗
“NIO Cyber and I think the new info is highly relevant, though I realize we’re in the minority here.”
Election Threat Analysis email
Source: page 3 ↗
04

The analytic ombudsman sought escalation before publication

The IC Analytic Ombudsman characterized the matter as a possible analytic-objectivity mistake and asked who could reconnect the election-security issue to the product about to be released. The email does not show the resulting decision or a final adjudication.

“we see an opportunity to prevent an analytic objectivity mistake from happening.”
IC Analytic Ombudsman email
Source: page 1 ↗
“Who would be the decision maker here to reconnect the thread on election security to what is about to go out?”
IC Analytic Ombudsman email
Source: page 1 ↗