Newly declassified FBI documents expose that the Washington Post published Russian collusion claims against President Trump that the FBI already knew were false — yet the newspaper was awarded journalism’s highest honor for the very reporting containing these falsehoods.
Quick Takes
- Former NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers told FBI investigators in June 2017 that a Washington Post story claiming Trump asked him to deny evidence of Russian collusion was inaccurate
- Despite knowing the story contained false information, the Washington Post received a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for its Russia collusion coverage
- President Trump has filed a defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board for defending the awards given to these now-discredited stories
- The Rogers interview was part of recently declassified Crossfire Hurricane documents that challenge mainstream media narratives on Russian collusion
- Neither the Washington Post nor the Pulitzer Prize Board has commented on these revelations
FBI Records Reveal Washington Post Published Known Falsehoods
Recently declassified FBI documents have revealed that a Washington Post story on Russian collusion—which later contributed to the newspaper winning a Pulitzer Prize—contained information that FBI officials already knew was false at the time of publication. The bombshell revelation centers on a May 2017 Washington Post article claiming President Trump asked intelligence officials, including then-NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, to publicly deny evidence of collusion with Russia during the 2016 election.
According to the declassified documents, Rogers explicitly informed FBI agents and members of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team during a June 2017 interview that the Washington Post’s characterization of his interactions with President Trump was incorrect. Despite this firsthand refutation from a key figure in the story, the Washington Post never issued a correction, and the article remained part of the paper’s Russia collusion coverage that was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 2018.
Rogers Directly Contradicted Post’s Reporting
The newly released documents show that when FBI agents specifically asked Rogers about the Washington Post article during his June 2017 interview, the Admiral was unequivocal in his response. Rogers told investigators that media characterizations of his conversations with President Trump were inaccurate, directly contradicting the central premise of the Post’s story. The records indicate Rogers was clear that Trump never asked him to publicly deny evidence of collusion or to interfere with ongoing investigations.
This revelation is particularly damaging because it demonstrates that both the FBI and the Mueller investigation team possessed concrete evidence contradicting the Washington Post’s reporting within weeks of the article’s publication. Despite this knowledge, the false narrative was allowed to persist in the public sphere and was even rewarded with journalism’s highest honor, raising serious questions about media integrity and the standards used in awarding prestigious journalism prizes.
Trump’s Legal Challenge Against Pulitzer Board
In response to these revelations, President Trump has filed a defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board for defending the awards given to the Washington Post and other outlets for their Russia collusion coverage. A Florida judge recently denied the Pulitzer Board’s motion to delay Trump’s lawsuit on presidential immunity grounds, allowing the case to proceed. The lawsuit argues that the Pulitzer Board knowingly endorsed false reporting by refusing to revoke the prizes despite mounting evidence challenging the accuracy of the stories.
The Rogers interview was part of a broader collection of declassified documents from the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which have continued to undermine the mainstream media’s years-long narrative about Russian collusion. These documents provide concrete evidence that major news organizations published information that was contradicted by official intelligence sources at the time, yet failed to correct the record when presented with contrary evidence.
Media Accountability in Question
Neither the Washington Post nor the Pulitzer Prize Board has commented on these new revelations, maintaining their silence as evidence continues to mount against the integrity of the reporting they have celebrated. The situation has intensified criticism from conservatives who have long maintained that major media organizations participated in spreading false narratives about President Trump while refusing to acknowledge errors when contradictory evidence emerged.
The documents’ release comes amid growing public skepticism about media coverage of political matters, particularly regarding the Russia investigation. With concrete evidence now showing that intelligence officials directly contradicted published accounts that were subsequently honored with journalism’s highest award, calls have intensified for greater accountability in political reporting and more transparent standards in recognizing journalistic achievement.
