Trump & Russia Collusion: The Narrative’s Problems Were Obvious Even in His First Year

Special Counsel John Durham’s newly released report on the conclusions of his probe of the FBI’s conduct in its investigation of Donald Trump’s alleged “collusion” with Russia paints a damning portrait of the bureau. The report savages the agency for applying a selective reading of the evidence before it to open the investigation in the first place — a lax standard reserved, apparently, for the 2016 Trump campaign alone. The report concludes by noting that, had agents applied the “standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence,” the agency would have concluded that the evidence linking Trump to Russian officials failed to warrant investigation.

The Durham probe’s findings have produced existential levels of cognitive dissonance among political observers for whom Trump’s indebtedness to Moscow was a foregone conclusion. The Washington Free Beacon has compiled some of the more glaring examples. Within 20 minutes of the report’s release, some of MSNBC’s contributors were prepared to dismiss the probe’s findings as a restatement of facts long known to observers who followed this story in its granular detail. “You can’t say there wasn’t collusion found here,” said one of the network’s legal analysts, citing the successful indictments of Russia-linked actors sought by Robert Mueller’s special-counsel investigation. “Durham is playing dumb,” he added. “He’s too smart for this and therefore I have to say there was an agenda here.” Just how deep does the conspiracy go?

About the Author

Noah Rothman

Noah Rothman is a senior writer at National Review. His third book, Blood and Progress: A Century of Left-Wing Violence, was published by Hachette in May 2026.

Featured Tags

Special Counsel John Durham’s newly released report on the conclusions of his probe of the FBI’s conduct in its investigation of Donald Trump’s alleged “collusion” with Russia paints a damning portrait of the bureau. The report savages the agency for applying a selective reading of the evidence before it to open the investigation in the first place — a lax standard reserved, apparently, for the 2016 Trump campaign alone. The report concludes by noting that, had agents applied the “standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence,” the agency would have concluded that the evidence linking Trump to Russian officials failed to warrant investigation.

The Durham probe’s findings have produced existential levels of cognitive dissonance among political observers for whom Trump’s indebtedness to Moscow was a foregone conclusion. The Washington Free Beacon has compiled some of the more glaring examples. Within 20 minutes of the report’s release, some of MSNBC’s contributors were prepared to dismiss the probe’s findings as a restatement of facts long known to observers who followed this story in its granular detail. “You can’t say there wasn’t collusion found here,” said one of the network’s legal analysts, citing the successful indictments of Russia-linked actors sought by Robert Mueller’s special-counsel investigation. “Durham is playing dumb,” he added. “He’s too smart for this and therefore I have to say there was an agenda here.” Just how deep does the conspiracy go?

About the Author

Noah Rothman

Noah Rothman is a senior writer at National Review. His third book, Blood and Progress: A Century of Left-Wing Violence, was published by Hachette in May 2026.