Trump Ally Joseph diGenova Appointed to Lead DOJ Probe into Former CIA Director Brennan

The Department of Justice has placed Joseph diGenova, a longtime Trump ally and former U.S. Attorney, at the helm of the criminal investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan — days after the career prosecutor previously leading the case was removed for raising doubts about the evidence [1][2].

The appointment marks a sharp escalation in a probe that critics call political retribution and supporters describe as long-overdue accountability. At its center is a question that has shadowed American intelligence for nearly a decade: did Brennan lie to Congress about the CIA's role in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian election interference?

The Appointment and Its Mechanism

DiGenova has been designated as counsel to the attorney general, stationed in Fort Pierce, Florida, within the Southern District of Florida [1]. This is not a special counsel appointment under 28 C.F.R. § 600, which would require the appointee to have "a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking" and would subject them to a formal conflict-of-interest review by the Assistant Attorney General for Administration [3]. Instead, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has assigned diGenova under the attorney general's broad authority to designate outside counsel — a mechanism that carries no statutory independence protections and allows removal at will [2].

The distinction matters. A special counsel under the federal regulations operates with defined jurisdiction, budget authority, and can only be fired for "misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause" [3]. DiGenova's role as counsel to the AG carries none of those guardrails, giving DOJ leadership direct control over the investigation's direction and pace.

Source: DOJ, Congressional Records, News Reports

Data as of Apr 19, 2026CSV

Why the Previous Prosecutor Was Removed

The appointment follows the removal of Maria Medetis Long, a career federal prosecutor who had been leading the investigation. According to sources familiar with the matter, Medetis Long was taken off the case after she resisted internal pressure to move quickly toward charging Brennan and expressed doubt that the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal prosecution [4][5].

The DOJ offered a benign explanation, stating that "as a matter of routine practice, attorneys are moved around on cases so offices can most effectively allocate resources" [5]. But the timing — with diGenova, a committed Trump loyalist, replacing a prosecutor who questioned the case — has drawn sharp criticism.

CNN reported in March 2026 that DOJ prosecutors were already facing pressure to bring charges against Brennan after failing to prosecute other Trump political adversaries, suggesting the Brennan case had taken on outsize symbolic importance within the department [6].

diGenova's Ties to Trump and the Conflict-of-Interest Question

DiGenova's professional and political entanglement with Trump is extensive and documented.

He served as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1983 to 1988 under President Reagan [7]. More recently, he was announced as a member of Trump's legal team during Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation in March 2018, though the appointment was withdrawn days later — citing an unspecified conflict of interest, as his firm also represented other figures in the Mueller probe [7][8].

In November 2020, Trump named diGenova to the legal team led by Rudy Giuliani that sought to overturn the results of the presidential election [7]. DiGenova and his wife, attorney Victoria Toensing, also represented Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash in 2019 as their associate Giuliani pursued damaging information about Joe Biden in Ukraine [7].

Throughout his media career — as a frequent Fox News contributor — diGenova has publicly accused Brennan of criminal conduct. On air, he has called Brennan's actions treasonous and stated that Brennan should be prosecuted, statements that go beyond commentary into prejudgment of guilt [8].

Under 28 C.F.R. § 600.3, a special counsel must be someone with "a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking" [3]. DiGenova was not appointed under these regulations, and no public statement has indicated that he underwent the conflict-of-interest review the regulations require for special counsel appointments. Legal ethics experts have questioned whether someone who has publicly declared the target guilty and maintained longstanding professional ties to the president can credibly lead such an investigation [9].

The Allegations Against Brennan

The investigation was sparked by a criminal referral from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan in October 2025 [10]. The referral alleges Brennan made "numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact" during a May 2023 deposition before the committee [10].

The core allegations center on Brennan's statements about the Steele dossier's role in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) — the landmark intelligence report concluding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump. Specifically, the referral identifies these contradictions:

Brennan's testimony: "The CIA was very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment" [10][11].

Declassified records: The CIA "drafted the annex containing a summary of the dossier," and the "decision to incorporate information from the Steele dossier in the ICA was jointly made by the Directors of CIA and FBI" [11].

Brennan's testimony: "It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment" [10].

Declassified records: The dossier was included as an appendix to the ICA and referenced in its analytical findings [11].

The applicable statute is 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a crime to "knowingly and willfully" make "any materially false statement or representation" in connection with a congressional investigation [10]. The penalty is up to five years in prison. Perjury charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 could also apply to sworn testimony.

What Prior Investigations Found — and Didn't Charge

This is not the first time these questions have been examined. The Brennan probe follows at least three prior federal inquiries into the origins of the Russia investigation.

Source: DOJ, Congressional Records

Data as of Apr 19, 2026CSV

The Horowitz IG Reviews (2018-2019): Inspector General Michael Horowitz conducted two major reviews — one on the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation and one on FISA warrant applications targeting Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The latter found 17 "significant errors or omissions" in the FISA applications but did not recommend charges against Brennan [12].

The Durham Investigation (2019-2023): Special Counsel John Durham spent four years and millions of dollars investigating the origins of the Russia probe. Durham interviewed Brennan for eight hours [13]. His final report criticized the FBI's decision to open a full investigation and found the bureau had acted on "raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence" [14]. But Durham brought no charges against Brennan. His three prosecutions — of attorney Michael Sussmann, researcher Igor Danchenko, and FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith — resulted in two acquittals and one guilty plea to a minor charge [14].

The question now is what new legal theory or evidence the current probe relies on that Durham did not pursue. The House Judiciary referral focuses on Brennan's 2023 deposition testimony, which occurred after Durham's investigation concluded. This post-Durham testimony provides a potential basis for charges that Durham could not have brought because the statements had not yet been made [10]. However, critics note that Brennan's earlier, substantively identical public statements were available to Durham, who declined to charge.

The Steelman Case for the Probe

Defenders of the investigation — including Chairman Jordan and allies in conservative media — argue the case is straightforward: declassified documents appear to contradict Brennan's sworn testimony, and lying to Congress is a federal crime regardless of who commits it [10][15].

There is a factual basis for this position. The declassified records show a discrepancy between Brennan's characterization of the CIA's stance on the Steele dossier and what internal records reflect. If Brennan knowingly misrepresented the CIA's role, that meets the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Fox News reported that sources close to the investigation describe it as "heating up," with the DOJ seeking additional testimony records from the House Judiciary Committee [15]. Supporters contend that Durham's failure to charge Brennan reflected political caution, not evidentiary weakness, and that the new probe — armed with Brennan's more recent deposition testimony — has a stronger factual foundation.

The Case That This Is Political Retribution

The countervailing evidence is substantial.

First, the personnel decision. A career prosecutor reviewed the evidence and concluded it was insufficient to charge — and was removed [4][5]. Her replacement is a political ally of the president who has publicly prejudged the target's guilt [8].

Second, the venue. Brennan's defense attorney, Ken Wainstein, has accused the DOJ of "irregular activity," including possible judge-shopping to funnel the case before Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee in the Southern District of Florida [16]. Wainstein's letter questions why the case is being pursued in Florida at all, given that Brennan was not based there when leading the CIA and the ICA was produced in Washington [16].

Third, the pattern. The Brennan investigation follows a series of efforts by the Trump DOJ to pursue the president's political critics, including cases against other former intelligence officials. CNN has reported that prosecutors faced pressure to bring charges after other such efforts stalled [6].

Fourth, the historical context. No sitting or former CIA director has ever been criminally charged for congressional testimony about intelligence assessments. The historical prosecution rate for such charges against senior intelligence officials is effectively zero.

Reactions from the Intelligence and Legal Community

In 2018, when Trump revoked Brennan's security clearance, more than 175 former intelligence officials signed a letter stating they had "never before seen the approval or removal of security clearances used as a political tool" [17]. Former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden warned the action would have a "chilling effect on the entire intelligence community," stating: "If you disagree with the president, if you say things with which the president disagrees or he does not like, he is willing to take punitive action against you" [17].

Those concerns have intensified with the criminal investigation. Former intelligence officials — including Republican appointees — have raised alarms that prosecuting a former CIA director for his characterization of an intelligence assessment could deter future intelligence leaders from providing candid analysis to policymakers and Congress.

The broader chilling effect is difficult to quantify but real in practice. Intelligence community recruitment already faces competition from the private sector; the prospect that post-service political activity could trigger criminal prosecution adds a new variable to that calculus. Comparable democracies — the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada — do not have a modern precedent for criminally charging a former intelligence chief over congressional testimony about analytic judgments.

Brennan's Legal Options and the Road Ahead

Brennan has been formally designated a "target" of the grand jury investigation, a term prosecutors use to indicate they are preparing to bring charges [16]. His attorney has already mounted a public legal challenge, filing a letter with the chief judge of the Southern District of Florida alleging judge-shopping and improper grand jury leaks [16].

If charges are brought, Brennan's defense team would likely challenge:

• Venue: Whether the Southern District of Florida has proper jurisdiction, given that the relevant conduct occurred in Washington, D.C.
• Appointment authority: Whether diGenova's designation as counsel to the AG — rather than as a properly vetted special counsel — violates DOJ regulations or due process.
• Materiality: Whether any misstatements were "material" to a congressional proceeding, a required element under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
• Selective prosecution: Whether the case was brought based on Brennan's political speech and criticism of the president, which would raise First Amendment concerns.

Any federal prosecution would be heard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, with appeals going to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Pretrial challenges to diGenova's appointment authority could be heard either in the Southern District or potentially in the D.C. Circuit.

The realistic timeline from appointment to any indictment depends on how aggressively diGenova moves. Given the DOJ's apparent frustration with the pace under Medetis Long, an indictment could come within months rather than years — though the case's legal vulnerabilities could also lead to a lengthy pre-trial phase.

What Comes Next

The diGenova appointment transforms this investigation from a standard federal inquiry into a direct test of whether the Department of Justice can maintain the appearance of independence when the investigator has extensive personal and professional ties to the president, has publicly declared the target guilty, and replaced a career prosecutor who questioned the case's viability.

The outcome will set precedents — formal or informal — for how future administrations treat former intelligence officials, how Congress weighs criminal referrals, and whether the post-Watergate norm of prosecutorial independence from the White House can survive an era of acute political polarization.