Former senior intelligence and FBI officials cooperating with the Justice Department's criminal investigation of former CIA Director John Brennan were subpoenaed over the weekend to testify before a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., a significant escalation in a probe examining whether Brennan lied to Congress about the CIA's role in the 2017 Russia intelligence assessment.
Multiple sources familiar with the matter told CBS News that the cooperating witnesses, who had previously been scheduled for voluntary interviews with FBI agents and prosecutors, were abruptly redirected to appear before the grand jury as soon as this week. The shift from friendly sit-downs to compelled grand jury testimony marks a clear turn in the investigation's posture.
The move came days after the Justice Department installed conservative Trump ally Joe DiGenova to formally take over the criminal investigation. His appointment followed the removal of career prosecutor Maria Medetis Long, who had been overseeing the case from the U.S. attorney's office in Miami. Long informed lawyers for witnesses late last week that she was being taken off the probe, without explanation.
A source told CBS News that Long was removed after raising concerns about the strength of the evidence. A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed the personnel shift but offered only that it was "healthy and normal."
That bland reassurance deserves scrutiny. A career national-security prosecutor flags doubts about the case, gets pulled, and the department's response is a two-word platitude. What matters now is whether the grand jury process produces evidence that justifies charges, or whether the probe stalls under the weight of its own ambitions.
The investigation was sparked by a criminal referral from the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee last October. Chairman Jim Jordan alleged that Brennan "falsely" denied the CIA relied on a dossier prepared by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele during the drafting of the intelligence community's assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Jordan further alleged Brennan falsely told the committee the CIA had opposed including the Steele dossier in that assessment.
Brennan's 2023 congressional testimony is the focal point. One witness in the case, a former CIA official, had already been interviewed twice and was scheduled for a third session in early May before the grand jury subpoenas were issued. That witness had previously answered questions about Brennan's testimony and, CBS News reported, offered no information that contradicted Brennan's account.
The same witness was also questioned about a disagreement with Brennan over whether there was enough intelligence to assess that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump and harm Hillary Clinton. That internal disagreement within the intelligence community has been a fault line in the Russia-assessment debate for years, and it sits at the heart of what prosecutors appear to be probing.
As we previously reported, the removal of the lead prosecutor raised immediate questions about the trajectory of the case and whether the Justice Department was prioritizing results over the judgment of its own attorneys.
The scope of the investigation extends well beyond Brennan alone. The New York Post reported that 30 federal grand jury subpoenas were issued as part of a broader Justice Department investigation into the 2016 Trump-Russia collusion probe. Those subpoenaed reportedly include former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, names that became household words during the original Russia investigation.
A source told the Post that the people targeted are seen as "part of the conspiracy" that peddled claims Trump's campaign colluded with the Russian government ahead of the 2016 election. The probe is being supervised by U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quiñones out of the Southern District of Florida.
The Associated Press confirmed that at least three subpoenas were issued for witnesses to testify before the Washington grand jury, and noted that the investigation concerns allegations Brennan made false statements to the House Judiciary Committee in 2023 about the preparation of the 2017 intelligence assessment. The AP also confirmed that Long left the case after expressing doubts about the legal viability of a potential prosecution.
The fact that multiple outlets, CBS, AP, and the Post, independently confirmed the subpoenas from their own sources gives the development substantial weight. This is not speculation. Grand jury subpoenas are the machinery of a criminal investigation moving toward a decision point.
Joe DiGenova's role raises its own set of questions, mostly from the left, which has seized on his political background. DiGenova previously represented the Trump campaign in efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election. His critics will frame his appointment as a sign that the Brennan probe is politically motivated.
But the question that matters is simpler: does the evidence support charges? DiGenova's appointment does not change what the witnesses say under oath. It does not change the documentary record. And it does not change whether Brennan's 2023 testimony was truthful.
The Justice Department has also been dealing with the fallout from a separate case in Virginia's eastern district, where Trump last year replaced the top federal prosecutor with Lindsey Halligan. Halligan secured indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, but those indictments were quickly dismissed after a federal judge ruled Halligan was unlawfully appointed.
That episode looms over the current probe. The DOJ's subpoena of Comey over his role in the 2017 intelligence assessment was already a signal that prosecutors were casting a wide net across Obama-era intelligence leadership. The Halligan debacle showed what happens when procedural shortcuts undercut otherwise serious investigations.
The U.S. attorney's office in Miami is also investigating a separate referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. In that referral, Gabbard claimed, without evidence, as Breitbart noted in its coverage of the AP report, that Brennan and other Obama-era officials "manufactured" the 2017 assessment. The word "manufactured" carries a heavy charge, and Gabbard has not publicly detailed the basis for it.
Still, the existence of two separate referrals, one from Congress, one from the sitting DNI, targeting the same former CIA director over the same intelligence product tells a story of its own. The 2017 assessment has been contested territory since the day it was published. Whether that contest rises to the level of criminal conduct is exactly what the grand jury is now being asked to evaluate.
The broader pattern of accountability questions surrounding Obama-era officials and their ongoing influence in Democratic politics only sharpens the public's interest in whether the intelligence community's most consequential product of the last decade was assembled honestly.
CBS News reported that the former CIA official who served as a witness in the case had offered no information contradicting Brennan's account during two prior interviews. That detail cuts against the prosecution's theory, or at least suggests the case is not a layup.
The witness was, however, questioned about a substantive disagreement with Brennan: whether the intelligence supported the conclusion that Russia aimed to help Trump and harm Clinton. That disagreement is not new. It was documented in the original assessment process and has been the subject of congressional inquiries and inspector general reviews.
The Washington Times noted that Brennan and his lawyers deny wrongdoing. That denial has been consistent. But denials are not dispositive, especially when a grand jury is now hearing testimony.
The open questions are significant. How many witnesses were subpoenaed in total? What specific evidence are prosecutors presenting to the grand jury? Did the subpoenas originate from prosecutors in Washington or from another office? And what, exactly, prompted the abrupt shift from voluntary interviews to compelled testimony?
None of those questions have public answers yet. The investigation's credibility will depend on whether the answers, when they come, reflect a genuine evidentiary basis, or a political exercise dressed in legal formality.
For years, the American public has been told that the intelligence community's assessment of Russian interference was beyond reproach. Brennan was one of its principal architects and its most vocal public defender. He parlayed his CIA tenure into a cable-news career built largely on the credibility of that assessment.
If he lied to Congress about how it was put together, about whether the CIA relied on the Steele dossier, about whether the agency resisted its inclusion, that is not a policy disagreement. It is a federal crime. False statements to Congress carry serious penalties, and the public has a right to know whether the man who ran the CIA told lawmakers the truth.
The removal of a career prosecutor who questioned the evidence is a legitimate concern. But so is the possibility that a career prosecutor's caution could shield a powerful former official from accountability he deserves. The grand jury exists precisely to weigh that tension, to hear evidence, test it, and decide whether charges are warranted.
The broader context matters, too. The media's long record of credulity toward Obama-era intelligence claims means that any prosecution of Brennan will face a wall of institutional resistance from the same outlets that spent years treating the Russia narrative as gospel.
Grand juries operate in secret for good reason. The witnesses will testify. The prosecutors will present their case. And eventually, the public will learn whether the evidence matches the gravity of the allegations, or falls short.
Americans who lived through the Russia-collusion years deserve a straight answer about whether the people who built that narrative told the truth under oath. A grand jury is the right place to find out.
