Ex-CIA Chief Brennan Subpoenaed in ‘Grand Conspiracy’ Probe

Former CIA Director John Brennan has been subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury in Fort Pierce, Florida, as part of a Justice Department investigation examining whether former intelligence and law enforcement officials conspired to deprive President Donald Trump of his civil rights, one of Brennan’s lawyers disclosed Monday.

According to NPR, which published an Associated Press wire report, the subpoena requires Brennan to appear before the grand jury on Oct. 15. His attorney, Ken Wainstein, revealed the subpoena as he argued in a Washington court for an order compelling the Justice Department to preserve all records from the investigations targeting his client.

Wainstein told U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb that the documents would be a “fertile source” of information about what he described as the government’s determination to indict Brennan, a prominent Trump critic, and would be needed to challenge any prosecution as unconstitutionally vindictive and selective.

“The reality is there’s no precedent for this situation,” Wainstein said, acknowledging the unusual nature of his request. “I’ve spent decades in and around the Justice Department. I’ve never even conceived of a situation like this” in which the department is “blatantly trying to frame somebody for a crime that is complete fiction.”

A ‘Far-Reaching’ Inquiry

The subpoena relates to a sprawling criminal probe built on a loosely defined theory that officials who investigated Trump over the past decade — including over Russian election interference in 2016 and his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate — conspired against him. Wainstein said he was told the subpoena is among a “flurry” issued in recent weeks.

The Florida grand jury sits in Fort Pierce, the home court of Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, whose D.C. division handles the case. Cannon drew national attention in 2024 when she dismissed the Justice Department’s prosecution charging Trump with illegally retaining classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

Wainstein characterized the grand jury’s location as evidence of what he called “judge-shopping” by the Justice Department. As The Guardian reported, he also cited directives by Trump to pursue perceived adversaries and the replacement or resignation of prosecutors who had raised internal doubts.

Separately, Brennan remains a target of a narrower, Washington-based investigation into whether he made false statements to Congress. Brennan and his attorneys have consistently denied that allegation. Subpoenas demanding grand jury testimony in that probe were issued in the spring and then abruptly withdrawn in favor of voluntary interviews.

Prosecutor’s Abrupt Exit

The subpoena was delivered on the same day that Joe diGenova, the prosecutor who had been leading the “grand conspiracy” investigation, abruptly resigned — a departure NBC News reported came amid Justice Department and White House frustration over the pace and management of the probe. DiGenova’s resignation produced no charges, and the department has not publicly named a replacement.

“It was an honor and a privilege to serve the president and the department,” diGenova told CBS News, which first reported the timing of his resignation letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche. A department spokesperson thanked diGenova for his work “these past five months alongside the great team of experienced prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida.”

In an interview with The New York Post, diGenova responded to criticism of his management by saying, “If you want indictments where there’s no evidence, you have an ethical problem.” He later told the AP the comments were taken out of context, adding that “there’s plenty of evidence in all of these cases to prove the theories of prosecution. It just takes time to get there.”

DiGenova, a longtime Trump loyalist who was part of efforts to overturn the 2020 election, had replaced career prosecutor Maria Medetis Long, who objected to advancing an investigation into Brennan, according to NBC News. The member of the investigative team with whom Wainstein spoke, Kurt Olsen, had unsuccessfully pushed the Justice Department in 2020 to back Trump’s false claims of a stolen election.

Legal Hurdles and Broader Concerns

The investigation reaches back roughly a decade, a significant obstacle given that most federal crimes carry a five-year statute of limitations on conduct tied to the 2016 era. No prosecutions have resulted from the probe to date.

Critics, including Brennan’s legal team and law enforcement veterans, have described the inquiries as a politically motivated effort to target the president’s perceived adversaries. Brennan filed a civil lawsuit in Washington in July seeking to preserve records from the investigations, alleging that the administration “adopted a policy of using criminal process and prosecution to punish the President’s perceived adversaries,” CBS News reported.

The Justice Department called the preservation request premature and speculative, arguing that Brennan has no standing because he is not a criminal defendant and may never be charged. Judge Cobb did not immediately rule on the request.

At the heart of the dispute is the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment concluding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor Trump. Brennan was CIA director at the time. A 2025 CIA review criticized agency leadership for rushing the effort but did not dispute its central conclusion. The bureau’s current director, John Ratcliffe, referred Brennan for investigation after declassified records raised questions about how the assessment was handled.

What to Watch

Brennan’s scheduled Oct. 15 appearance before the Fort Pierce grand jury is the next concrete step in a probe that has already reshaped the careers of the prosecutors involved. Whether it produces charges — and whether the courts accept Brennan’s argument that any prosecution would be vindictive — remains unresolved.

Wainstein said he could not easily explain what crime the Justice Department could credibly accuse his client of committing. But he argued it was far from speculative to believe Brennan is at substantial risk of indictment.

“The message is very clear to the personnel at DOJ about what needs to happen,” he said.