Few aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation generated more controversy than the surveillance of Carter Page.
Page, an American citizen and former foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, became the target of electronic surveillance authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The FBI and Department of Justice obtained an initial surveillance order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in October 2016 and subsequently obtained three renewals.
Years later, the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (DOJ OIG), led by Inspector General Michael Horowitz, conducted an extensive review of the FBI’s handling of the applications.
Its findings were significant.
The Inspector General did not conclude that the FBI’s opening of Crossfire Hurricane itself resulted from political bias, and the OIG determined that the investigation had sufficient predication under applicable FBI policy. But when investigators examined the separate process used to obtain and renew FISA surveillance authority against Carter Page, they identified serious failures.
The OIG found 17 significant inaccuracies and omissions across the four Carter Page FISA applications—seven in the initial application, with the total reaching 17 by the final renewal. Inspector General Horowitz concluded that the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to meet its obligation to ensure the applications were “scrupulously accurate.” (DOJ Inspector General)
Understanding exactly what the Inspector General found—and what the report did not find—is essential to understanding one of the most consequential surveillance controversies in modern American history.
Who Was Carter Page?
Carter Page was an American energy consultant with experience involving Russia and the former Soviet Union.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Page served for a period as a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign.
His contacts and activities involving Russia attracted the attention of federal counterintelligence investigators.
Page was not entirely unknown to the U.S. government before 2016.
One of the significant issues later identified by the Inspector General involved Page’s prior relationship with another U.S. government agency. According to the OIG, the FBI had received information indicating that Page had been approved as an operational contact for that agency from 2008 to 2013 and had provided information concerning contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers.
That information was relevant because some of Page’s Russian contacts were later presented as part of the government’s case for surveillance.
The OIG found that information concerning this prior relationship—including information potentially providing context for Page’s contacts—was omitted from the FISA applications. (DOJ Inspector General)
This became one of several examples identified by the Inspector General in which information potentially relevant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s evaluation of the case was not accurately or completely presented.
What Is a FISA Warrant?
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act establishes legal procedures through which the federal government may seek authorization to conduct certain surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.
Applications are submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a specialized federal court.
Unlike a typical criminal proceeding, the target of the surveillance does not appear before the court to challenge the government’s allegations.
The proceeding is ex parte: the government presents its application to the court without an opposing attorney representing the surveillance target.
That structure places an extraordinary responsibility on government attorneys and investigators to provide the court with accurate and complete information.
Inspector General Horowitz emphasized this concern when discussing the Carter Page case. FISA surveillance can target U.S. persons and can foreseeably collect information involving constitutionally protected activities. Because the government is the only party appearing before the FISA Court, the accuracy of the government’s representations takes on particular importance. (DOJ Inspector General)
Related Truth Trench Research: Understanding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC): The Secret Court Behind America’s Intelligence Operations
That article examines the court itself, the legal framework surrounding FISA surveillance, and the unique oversight challenges created by secret proceedings involving national security.
The Four Carter Page FISA Applications
The government obtained an initial FISA surveillance order targeting Carter Page and subsequently sought three renewals.
Each renewal required the government to return to the FISA Court and justify continuing the surveillance.
The existence of multiple approved applications is important—but so is understanding how the FISA process works.
A judge reviewing a FISA application relies heavily upon the information presented by the government.
If significant information is inaccurate, incomplete, or omitted, the court may be making its decision without the full factual picture.
That issue became central to the Inspector General’s findings.
The OIG examined the FBI’s investigative files, internal communications, the information available to investigators, and what was ultimately communicated through the Department of Justice’s National Security Division to the FISA Court.
The review identified problems in all four applications. (DOJ Inspector General)
Seventeen Significant Inaccuracies and Omissions
The number most frequently associated with the Inspector General’s findings is 17.
The OIG identified seven significant inaccuracies and omissions in the first Carter Page FISA application. By the final renewal, the cumulative number identified across the applications had reached 17.
The problems were not all identical.
Some involved information that was inaccurately characterized.
Others involved information that investigators possessed but failed to provide through the process responsible for preparing the applications.
Still others involved information that potentially weakened or contradicted allegations presented to the court.
According to Horowitz, the problems were primarily caused by members of the Crossfire Hurricane team failing to share all relevant information with the DOJ National Security Division. As a result, Department officials responsible for deciding whether to support the applications did not have all of the relevant information before them. (DOJ Inspector General)
This distinction matters.
The Inspector General’s findings were not simply that a few typographical mistakes appeared in complicated government paperwork.
The concern was that information relevant to assessing probable cause and source reliability was inaccurately presented or omitted from applications seeking authority to conduct intrusive surveillance of an American citizen.
The Steele Dossier and the FISA Applications
Christopher Steele’s reporting played an important role in the Carter Page FISA applications.
This fact is sometimes confused with a separate question: whether the Steele dossier caused the FBI to open Crossfire Hurricane.
According to the Inspector General’s findings, it did not.
Crossfire Hurricane was opened in July 2016 based on information involving Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos.
Steele’s reporting entered the investigative picture separately.
But when the FBI sought FISA surveillance authority targeting Carter Page, Steele’s reporting became important to the government’s presentation.
The Inspector General stated that the FISA applications relied entirely on Steele reporting to support the specific allegation that Page was coordinating with the Russian government regarding the 2016 presidential election. (DOJ Inspector General)
That made the FBI’s evaluation of Steele’s sources and the reliability of his reporting particularly important.
Related Truth Trench Research: The Steele Dossier: What It Claimed—and What Was Later Verified, Disputed, or Unsubstantiated
That article examines the distinction between the dossier’s broader themes and its individual allegations, including which claims were independently supported, disputed, contradicted, or left unsubstantiated by subsequent investigations.
What Steele’s Primary Sub-Source Told the FBI
One of the Inspector General’s most consequential findings concerned the FBI’s interviews with Steele’s Primary Sub-source.
In January 2017, the FBI obtained information from the Primary Sub-source that, according to the Inspector General, raised significant questions about the reliability of Steele reporting used in the Carter Page FISA applications.
The problem was what happened afterward.
According to Horowitz, members of the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to provide the relevant information concerning the Primary Sub-source to the Department of Justice.
As a result, it was omitted from the three renewal applications.
The government therefore continued seeking authorization to surveil Page without providing the FISA Court with information the Inspector General believed was significant to evaluating the reliability of reporting used in the applications. (DOJ Inspector General)
This finding became central to criticism of the renewal process.
Even if investigators reasonably relied upon intelligence reporting at an earlier stage, newly discovered information affecting the reliability of that reporting can change the factual picture.
A surveillance application is not static.
As investigators learn new information, particularly information that weakens previous assertions, the accuracy of subsequent representations to the court becomes increasingly important.
Carter Page’s Prior Government Relationship
Another significant omission involved Carter Page’s previous relationship with another U.S. government agency.
The Inspector General found that the FBI had information indicating Page had been approved as an operational contact for that agency between 2008 and 2013.
Page had reportedly provided information to the agency concerning previous contacts with Russian intelligence officers.
Some of those contacts overlapped with information relevant to the FISA application.
The OIG also noted that an employee of the other agency had assessed Page as having been candid about his contacts.
This information was not included in the FISA applications. (DOJ Inspector General)
Why did that matter?
Because context can fundamentally change the interpretation of intelligence activity.
Contact between an American and a suspected foreign intelligence officer can raise legitimate counterintelligence concerns.
But if the American had previously reported such contacts to another U.S. government agency, that fact could potentially affect how those interactions are interpreted.
The FISA Court did not receive that full context through the applications.
The Altered Email
One of the most serious individual incidents arising from the Carter Page FISA controversy involved an FBI attorney who altered an email concerning Page’s prior relationship with another government agency.
The original information indicated that Page had previously been a source or operational contact for the agency.
The email was altered in a way that conveyed that Page was “not a source.”
The altered information was then relied upon during the preparation of a FISA renewal application.
Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith later pleaded guilty to making a false statement in connection with altering the email.
This episode became particularly significant because it went beyond disagreement over investigative judgment or the interpretation of intelligence.
It involved the alteration of information used within a process designed to support an application for continued government surveillance.
At the same time, the misconduct of one individual should not automatically be treated as proof that every person involved in the investigation acted with the same intent.
The institutional question is broader:
How did a system designed to ensure accuracy fail to detect and prevent such conduct before information reached the surveillance process?
What Were the Woods Procedures?
The FBI’s Woods Procedures are designed to ensure that factual assertions contained in FISA applications are supported by documentation.
The procedures generally require the FBI to maintain a file containing supporting material for factual statements presented to the FISA Court.
In theory, this creates an internal verification system.
An assertion presented to the court should be traceable to underlying documentation.
But the Carter Page review revealed significant failures in that process.
The OIG’s concerns were substantial enough that it initiated a broader audit examining the FBI’s compliance with Woods Procedures in other FISA applications targeting U.S. persons in counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations. (DOJ Inspector General)
This raises an important question.
Were the problems unique to Crossfire Hurricane?
Or did the Carter Page investigation expose broader weaknesses in the FBI’s FISA verification system?
That question became the subject of additional Inspector General work.
Related Truth Trench Research: The Woods Procedures: How the FBI Verifies FISA Applications
Did the Inspector General Find Political Bias?
This is another area where precision matters.
The Inspector General did not conclude that political bias caused the FBI to open Crossfire Hurricane.
The OIG found that the investigation had an authorized purpose and sufficient factual predication under applicable FBI guidelines.
At the same time, the Inspector General identified serious failures in the Carter Page FISA process.
These findings are not mutually exclusive.
It is possible for an investigation to be properly opened under applicable investigative standards while later investigative actions are conducted improperly.
The question of whether Crossfire Hurricane should have been opened is therefore distinct from the question of whether the Carter Page FISA applications were accurate and properly handled.
The OIG’s findings require those issues to be evaluated separately.
Related Truth Trench Research: Crossfire Hurricane: How the FBI’s Trump-Russia Investigation Began
That article examines the information that prompted the FBI to open the investigation and distinguishes the origins of Crossfire Hurricane from the later use of FISA surveillance.
What Did the Inspector General Ultimately Conclude?
The Inspector General’s conclusion regarding the Carter Page FISA applications was sharply critical.
The Crossfire Hurricane team failed to comply with FBI policies and failed to meet its obligation to ensure that the applications were scrupulously accurate.
The OIG identified significant inaccuracies and omissions in every application.
Information raising questions about Steele’s reporting was not properly communicated.
Information concerning Page’s prior relationship with another government agency was omitted.
The internal verification process failed to prevent significant factual problems from reaching the surveillance applications.
The Inspector General made nine recommendations intended to address deficiencies identified during the review and improve DOJ and FBI procedures. (DOJ Inspector General)
The findings represented a significant institutional criticism of the FBI’s handling of one of the government’s most sensitive investigative authorities.
What the Findings Do Not Establish
The Inspector General’s findings are serious.
But understanding them also requires recognizing what they do not automatically prove.
The report does not establish that Russian interference in the 2016 election did not occur.
Russian election interference was independently established through other investigations and intelligence findings.
The report does not establish that every concern investigators had regarding Carter Page was fabricated.
Nor does it establish that every individual involved in Crossfire Hurricane intentionally misled the FISA Court.
At the same time, the seriousness of the identified errors and omissions should not be minimized simply because the OIG did not attribute the opening of Crossfire Hurricane to political bias.
Government surveillance authority carries extraordinary power.
The legitimacy of that authority depends in significant part upon the government’s ability to provide courts with complete and accurate information.
The Carter Page case demonstrated what can happen when those safeguards fail.
Supporters’ Perspective
Those defending the broader FBI investigation argue that federal officials were confronting legitimate national security concerns during an unprecedented election-interference operation conducted by a foreign adversary.
They emphasize that the Inspector General found sufficient predication to open Crossfire Hurricane and did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias drove the decision to initiate the investigation.
From this perspective, the Carter Page FISA failures represent serious procedural and institutional breakdowns that should be corrected without invalidating every aspect of the broader investigation.
Supporters also argue that intelligence investigations frequently involve incomplete and evolving information, requiring investigators to make difficult judgments under uncertain conditions.
The appropriate response, in this view, is stronger oversight and better procedures rather than abandoning necessary counterintelligence authorities.
Critics’ Perspective
Critics argue that the Carter Page applications demonstrate precisely why secret surveillance authorities require extraordinary safeguards.
The target was an American citizen.
The surveillance intersected with a presidential campaign.
The proceedings occurred without Page or his attorney present to challenge the government’s assertions.
And the Inspector General subsequently identified significant inaccuracies and omissions across all four applications.
From this perspective, the fact that errors continued through multiple renewals is particularly concerning.
Each renewal represented another opportunity to reassess the evidence, incorporate newly discovered information, correct earlier representations, and provide the court with a more complete factual record.
Critics therefore view the Carter Page case as evidence of deeper problems involving verification, confirmation bias, institutional accountability, and the government’s responsibility when exercising secret surveillance powers.
Why the Carter Page FISA Warrants Still Matter
The Carter Page controversy is larger than Carter Page.
It raises fundamental questions about the relationship between national security and individual rights.
FISA surveillance exists because foreign intelligence threats are real.
Foreign governments conduct espionage.
Adversaries attempt to recruit Americans.
Intelligence services operate clandestinely.
The government requires lawful tools to identify and counter those threats.
But secrecy creates its own risks.
When surveillance decisions occur behind closed doors, the public cannot independently observe the process.
The surveillance target cannot challenge the government’s evidence before authorization is granted.
The court therefore depends heavily upon the integrity of the agencies appearing before it.
That makes internal verification procedures, judicial candor, congressional oversight, Inspector General review, and institutional accountability essential.
The Carter Page case demonstrates what happens when those safeguards are tested—and why the consequences extend far beyond a single investigation.
Continue Your Research
Timeline of Events and Primary Sources: Crossfire Hurricane, FISA, and the Trump-Russia Investigation
What Are Your Thoughts?
Should the government face a higher verification standard when seeking secret surveillance authority against an American citizen?
Should additional safeguards apply when a surveillance target has connections to a presidential campaign or other constitutionally sensitive activity?
Were the failures identified by the Inspector General primarily individual mistakes, institutional failures, or evidence of deeper problems within the FISA process?
And when the government discovers information that weakens assertions previously presented to a secret court, what obligation should it have to immediately correct the record?
Truth Trench Think Tank is collecting public perspectives on FISA, intelligence oversight, civil liberties, government surveillance, institutional accountability, and public trust as part of our continuing research.
As an independent research institute, Truth Trench Think Tank does not engage in lobbying or partisan political activity. Our mission is to improve public understanding through transparent, evidence-based research and encourage informed civic participation grounded in publicly available information.
When government operates behind closed doors, accountability depends on someone checking the work.
That’s why we keep digging.
