🔴 Website 👉 https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram 👉 https://t.me/usnewscom_channel
Newly declassified FBI documents reveal the Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize for a story that intelligence officials knew was false all along.
At a Glance
- FBI documents show former NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers refuted key claims in Washington Post’s Pulitzer-winning Russian collusion story
- Rogers told FBI agents in June 2017 that the Post’s May 2017 story contained false information about President Trump asking intelligence officials to push back against Russia probe
- Despite knowing the story was inaccurate, neither the FBI, Washington Post, nor Pulitzer Prize Board ever corrected the record
- President Trump is currently suing the Pulitzer Board for defamation for defending awards given to Russian collusion stories
Intelligence Officials Knew Post’s Russia Story Was False
Bombshell FBI documents have exposed what many Trump supporters have long suspected – the Washington Post’s Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting on alleged Russian collusion was based on falsehoods. According to recently declassified FBI records, former NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers explicitly told FBI agents and Robert Mueller’s team in June 2017 that a Washington Post story from the previous month contained significant inaccuracies about President Trump’s interactions with intelligence officials regarding the Russia investigation.
The Washington Post story in question claimed that President Trump had asked Rogers and then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats to publicly deny any evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russia. The narrative portrayed this as an attempt by the president to improperly influence intelligence officials to counter the FBI’s investigation. However, Rogers explicitly refuted this characterization during his interview with federal investigators, stating unequivocally that Trump never asked him to do anything inappropriate regarding the Russia investigation.
Pulitzer Prize Based on Debunked Reporting
Despite Rogers’ clear refutation of the story’s claims, the Washington Post never issued a correction or retraction. Even more troubling, this very story was part of the Post’s package of articles that earned it a prestigious Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for “deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage” of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The declassified documents raise serious questions about the journalistic standards at one of America’s most prominent newspapers and the integrity of journalism’s highest honor.
The FBI records show that even as the Mueller investigation continued for nearly two more years, with media outlets publishing breathless reports about alleged Trump-Russia connections, intelligence officials had already made clear that fundamental premises of the collusion narrative were false. Yet neither the FBI nor the media alerted the public to these critical facts, allowing a misleading narrative to dominate political discourse for years and severely damaging President Trump’s ability to govern effectively.
Trump Fights Back with Defamation Lawsuit
President Trump isn’t taking this revelation lying down. He has filed a defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board for continuing to defend the awards given to the Washington Post and New York Times for their Russia collusion coverage. A Florida judge recently denied the Pulitzer Board’s motion to delay the case on presidential immunity grounds, allowing Trump’s legal challenge to proceed. The lawsuit takes on new significance in light of the Rogers interview, which provides concrete evidence that at least some of the prize-winning reporting was based on provably false information.
The silence from both the Washington Post and the Pulitzer Prize Board regarding these revelations speaks volumes. Neither organization has acknowledged the declassified documents or attempted to defend the accuracy of the reporting in question. This lack of accountability reinforces concerns that major media institutions are more committed to maintaining political narratives than adhering to journalistic standards of accuracy and truth. When presented with evidence that contradicts their preferred storylines, elite media organizations apparently prefer to ignore inconvenient facts rather than correct the record.
Broader Pattern of Media Misconduct
The Rogers interview was part of a larger collection of declassified Crossfire Hurricane documents that have systematically dismantled key components of the Russian collusion narrative pushed by mainstream media for years. These documents show that intelligence officials repeatedly informed investigators that many of the sensational claims about Trump-Russia connections were either unsubstantiated or demonstrably false. Yet major media outlets continued to promote these claims, often citing anonymous intelligence sources, while ignoring contradictory evidence that would have undermined their preferred narrative.
This episode represents more than just a single journalistic failure; it reflects a systemic breakdown in media accountability that has eroded public trust in once-respected institutions. The fact that a newspaper could win journalism’s highest honor for reporting that officials knew to be false at the time of publication raises profound questions about the criteria used to evaluate journalistic excellence. If accuracy is no longer the primary standard for journalistic awards, then what purpose do these accolades serve beyond reinforcing ideological conformity within the media establishment?