Report: How involved were Russia and Iran in 2020 US elections?

A declassified report released Tuesday shows that the Kremlin and Iran both worked to shape the outcome of the 2020 United States elections. However, intelligence officials found no evidence that the voting process was disrupted. 

Alexei Druzhinin/Sputnik/Kremlin/AP
Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a Security Council meeting via video conference at the Novo-Ogaryovo residence outside Moscow, Russia, March 12, 2021. The Kremlin rejected allegations in a report released Tuesday on foreign threats to the 2020 U.S. election.

Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized influence operations to help Donald Trump in last November’s presidential election, according to a declassified intelligence assessment that found broad efforts by the Kremlin and Iran to shape the outcome of the race but ultimately no evidence that any foreign actor changed votes or otherwise disrupted the voting process.

The report released Tuesday from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence represents the most detailed assessment of the array of foreign threats to the 2020 election. These included efforts by Iran to undermine confidence in the vote and harm Mr. Trump’s reelection prospects as well as Moscow operations that relied on Mr. Trump’s allies to smear Joe Biden, the eventual winner.

Despite those threats, though, intelligence officials found “no indications that any foreign actor attempted to interfere in the 2020 US elections by altering any technical aspect of the voting process, including voter registration, ballot casting, vote tabulation, or reporting results.”

The report is the latest official affirmation of the integrity of the election, even as Trump supporters continue to make false claims of interference, from foreign or domestic actors, and refuse to accept Mr. Biden’s victory. Multiple courts and even Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department refuted claims of widespread fraud. The document makes clear that even while Mr. Trump has cried foul about the legitimacy of the election, intelligence officials believe Russia sought to influence people close to Mr. Trump as a way to tip the election in his favor.

The report, rejected by Russia as “unsubstantiated,” wades into the politically charged task of ferreting out which foreign adversaries supported which candidates during the 2020 election, an issue that dominated headlines last year. Mr. Trump, whose 2016 campaign benefited from hacking by Russian intelligence officers and a covert social media effort, seized on an intelligence assessment from August that said China preferred a Biden presidency – even though the same assessment also said Russia was working to boost Mr. Trump’s own candidacy by disparaging Mr. Biden.

Tuesday’s report, however, says China ultimately did not interfere on either side and “considered but did not deploy” influence operations intended to affect the outcome. United States officials say they believe Beijing prioritized a stable relationship with the U.S. and did not consider either election outcome as advantageous enough for it to risk the “blowback” that would ensue if it got caught with interfering.

The primary threats instead came from Russia and Iran, albeit with different intentions and through different means, according to intelligence officials.

In the case of Russia, the report says, Russia sought to undermine Mr. Biden’s candidacy because it viewed his presidency as opposed to the Kremlin’s interests, though it took some steps to prepare for a Democratic administration as the election neared.

The report also says Mr. Putin authorized influence operations aimed at denigrating Mr. Biden, boosting Mr. Trump, undermining confidence in the election and exacerbating social divisions in the U.S.

Mr. Biden, in an interview that aired Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” said that there would be repercussions for Mr. Putin for a variety of misdeeds, saying, “The price he’s going to pay, you’ll see shortly.”

The president recounted that in their first call, held last month, he opened by saying to Mr. Putin that “we understand each other.” And when asked in the interview if he thinks Mr. Putin is a killer, Mr. Biden said, “I do.”

Central to Moscow’s interference effort was reliance on proxies linked to Russian intelligence “to launder influence narratives” by using media organizations, U.S. officials, and people close to Mr. Trump to push “misleading or unsubstantiated” allegations against Mr. Biden.

Intelligence officials did not single out any Trump ally in that effort. But longtime associate Rudy Giuliani met multiple times with Ukrainian lawmaker Andrii Derkach, who in 2020 released heavily edited recordings of Mr. Biden in an effort to link the Democratic nominee to unsubstantiated corruption allegations. U.S. officials have said they regard Mr. Derkach as an “active Russian agent,” and Tuesday’s report said Mr. Putin is believed to have “purview” over his activities.

Notably, though, Russia was not as aggressive as in past election cycles in trying to hack election infrastructure. The report says Russian cyber operations that targeted state and local government networks last year were probably not election-focused and were instead part of a broader effort to target U.S. and global entities.

The Kremlin on Wednesday rejected the allegations in the report.

“We disagree with this report’s findings about our country,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on a conference call with reporters. “Russia didn’t interfere with the previous election and didn’t interfere with the 2020 election mentioned in the report.”

He said Russia “has nothing to do with campaigns against any of the candidates,” calling the report “unfounded and unsubstantiated.” He expressed regret that “such materials, far from being of high quality,” could be used as a pretext for new sanctions against Russia.

Iran, meanwhile, carried out its own influence campaign aimed at harming Mr. Trump’s reelection bid, an effort U.S. officials say was probably approved by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

One “highly targeted operation” – the subject of an October news conference by then-Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Christopher Wray – involved a flurry of emails to Democratic voters in battleground states that falsely purported to be from the far-right group Proud Boys and threatened the recipients if they didn’t vote for Mr. Trump.

Iran’s efforts, which officials say were more aggressive than in past elections and continued even after the contest was over, were focused on sowing discord in the U.S., likely because Tehran believed that would hurt Mr. Trump’s re-election chances.

Though Iran sought to exploit vulnerabilities on state election websites, and did “compromise US entities associated with election infrastructure as a part of a broad targeting effort across multiple sectors worldwide,” it did not attempt to manipulate votes or affect election infrastructure, the report concluded.

The 15-page document is a declassified version of an election interference report that was provided to Mr. Trump on Jan. 7, one day after a riot at the U.S. Capitol that occurred as Congress was gathering to certify the election results.

A separate document released Tuesday from the departments of Justice and Homeland Security reached a similar conclusion about the integrity of the election, saying there was no evidence any foreign actor had changed votes.

This story was reported by The Associated Press. Associated Press writer Jonathan Lemire contributed reporting.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Report: How involved were Russia and Iran in 2020 US elections?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today