In cases of controversy, there's invariably a tug-of-war behind the scenes, and the group with the largest presence will prevail. Nonetheless I am sympathetic to its summary of the two DoE reports quoted above; if it gets anything wrong, it is through its unequivocal wording, painting the question in a light that makes the DoE position crystal clear, when maybe it's not so clear cut.
OK, I know there was a tug-of-war behind the present position of Wikipedia on CF (maybe there was a similar war behind the sphericity of the Hearth), anyway one position prevailed, and Wikipedia registered the clear DoE position which negates reality and usefulness of CF/LENR tech. Such negative position has also been denounced from many LENR supporters, and someone of them reported first hand information about it on Vortex (1): "THE government expertise in energy is supposed to reside in the Dept of Energy. I have had an extended discussions with them about LENR and can confirm that the universal consensus there is that LENR is impossible because there is now [no?] way of overcoming the Coulomb barrier at low temperature."
The above cited Vortex mail quotes also a letter sent to the Secretary of Energy on July 2015, in order to invoke some attention to the field. It's really interesting to see the used arguments: "The game changed after Andrea Rossi contacted Prof Focardi in 2007 and he demonstrated a reactor called the E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) in 2011 that was capable of generating kW of heat."
So, less than one year ago, the game changer for some supporters in the field was still the January 2011 demo. Now, look, please, at the first of the 3 flaws of that demo described in a previous comment (2), search "HP474AC" on Google Image and see how long it would be taken to realize that the sole and most important instrument cited in the calorimetric report was not at its supposed place. Then, speaking about biased opinions, consider how much enthusiasm has been aroused by that only LENR test. I'd remember you that the Lewan's book begins with that episode, and it also introduces the long article on Popular Mechanics (3): "On January 14, 2011, a 61-years old ...".
At that time, the official reports signed by the UniBo professors were issued in the JoNP, after the approval by its Board of Advisers, a member of which was a DoD functionary, which also wrote one of the first preliminary report on the calorimetry of the January demo.
Do the DoD leadership think that LENR is an impossibility?
For sure, as documented by the previous comments, some single units and some single persons from DoD have provided a big support to the CF/LENR field since its appearance, and have endorsed nearly all the Ecat claims, at least until last September.
Did this support reflects the official position of the (present) DoD leadership? I don't know. Maybe they will say us, the next September.
(1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg106241.html"
(2) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”