Newly declassified FBI documents confirm what many suspected all along: The Washington Post’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “Russian collusion” coverage was based on falsehoods that the FBI knew about but did nothing to correct.
At a Glance
- Declassified FBI files reveal former NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers informed FBI agents in June 2017 that a key Washington Post story about Russian collusion was inaccurate
- The contested story claimed President Trump asked intelligence officials to push back against the FBI’s Russia probe—which Rogers explicitly denied
- Despite knowing the story was false, the FBI allowed the Washington Post to win a Pulitzer Prize for its Russian collusion coverage
- President Trump is currently suing the Pulitzer Board for defamation for defending these awards
The FBI Knew the Truth All Along
The Washington Post’s much-celebrated coverage of alleged Russian collusion has crumbled under the weight of declassified FBI documents that expose fundamental falsehoods at the heart of their reporting. These documents reveal that former NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers explicitly informed both FBI agents and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team in June 2017 that a Post story from May 2017 contained significant inaccuracies. The revelation is particularly damning considering this very coverage contributed to the Post winning a prestigious Pulitzer Prize in 2018.
The Washington Post story in question claimed President Trump had asked intelligence officials to publicly deny any evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russia. Admiral Rogers, who was directly implicated in this narrative, told investigators the opposite was true. The FBI interview records explicitly state that Rogers “denied that the President had ever made any such request of him,” directly contradicting the Post’s reporting that had become gospel truth among establishment media.
Prestige Over Truth
Despite having definitive evidence that the Washington Post’s reporting was false, the FBI remained silent as the newspaper was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2018. This prize, shared with The New York Times, specifically recognized their coverage of “Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign” – the very narrative that Rogers had debunked to federal investigators. The complicity of the FBI in allowing falsified reporting to be elevated and celebrated represents a profound breach of trust in American institutions.
While the Justice Department has been quick to address alleged Russian influence operations targeting the 2024 election, they’ve shown remarkably little interest in correcting the record about the falsified Russian collusion narrative that dominated headlines throughout President Trump’s first term. This selective enforcement pattern raises serious questions about whether law enforcement agencies are genuinely concerned with protecting election integrity or simply advancing preferred political narratives.
Accountability Finally Coming?
President Trump isn’t taking this lying down. He’s currently suing the Pulitzer Prize Board for defamation after they refused to rescind the awards given to The Washington Post and The New York Times for their now-discredited reporting. A Florida judge recently denied the Pulitzer Board’s motion to delay Trump’s defamation lawsuit on presidential immunity grounds, clearing the way for accountability. The Rogers interview was part of the declassified Crossfire Hurricane documents, which systematically dismantle mainstream media narratives on Russian collusion that poisoned American politics for years.
The irony shouldn’t be lost on anyone that while government officials condemn Russian disinformation, they’ve allowed American media outlets to spread their own brand of disinformation unchallenged. Neither the Washington Post nor the Pulitzer Prize Board has offered any comment on these damning revelations, maintaining a deafening silence that speaks volumes about their commitment to journalistic integrity. This scandal strikes at the heart of trust in American institutions – when prestigious newspapers won’t correct the record and prize committees won’t rescind undeserved awards, why should the public trust anything they publish?
