Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed multiple witnesses to testify before a grand jury in Washington as part of the Justice Department's investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan, three people familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Monday. At least three subpoenas went out in recent days, a move that signals prosecutors believe any criminal case against Brennan would need to be filed in Washington, where his congressional testimony took place.

The development marks a significant shift in the probe, which had been based in Florida for months. Investigators there had already lined up interviews and issued subpoenas for records. But the new grand jury activity in the nation's capital suggests the inquiry is moving toward a potential charging decision, not winding down.

The investigation centers on whether Brennan made false statements before the House Judiciary Committee in 2023 regarding the preparation of the intelligence community's January 2017 assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Rep. Jim Jordan, the Republican chairman of the committee, sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department last year alleging exactly that.

A broader probe takes shape

The Brennan subpoenas are part of what appears to be a much wider effort. The New York Post reported that a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida has issued roughly 30 subpoenas to former Obama-era intelligence and FBI officials. Those subpoenaed reportedly include not only Brennan but also former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, names that became synonymous with the Trump-Russia investigation during the Obama and early Trump years.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe's review described Brennan, Clapper, and former FBI Director James Comey as "excessively involved" in a rushed and unconventional intelligence assessment on Russian election interference. Ratcliffe told the Post bluntly:

"This was Obama, Comey, Clapper and Brennan deciding 'We're going to screw Trump.'"

That assessment, published in January 2017, just before the presidential transition, concluded that Russia had interfered in the 2016 campaign with the aim of helping Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton. Special counsel Robert Mueller's subsequent investigation found that Russia meddled on Trump's behalf and that his campaign welcomed the assistance, but Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy.

For years, conservatives have argued that the intelligence community assessment was itself a political product, shaped not by dispassionate analysis but by senior officials with an interest in undermining the incoming president. Jordan's criminal referral to the Justice Department reflects that concern, alleging Brennan misled Congress about how the assessment was assembled.

The DOJ has also subpoenaed James Comey over his role in the 2017 assessment, adding another layer to the probe's widening scope.

Prosecutor removed, special counselor sworn in

The grand jury subpoenas were not the only notable development. On Friday, it emerged that Maria Medetis Long, a key national security prosecutor in Florida who had been handling the investigation, left the case. A person familiar with the matter said she expressed doubts about it and was removed.

Her departure raises questions. Did she believe the evidence was insufficient? Did she disagree with the direction the probe was taking? The answers remain unclear. But the Justice Department did not let the vacancy slow things down.

On Monday, the same day the subpoenas became public, Joseph diGenova was sworn in as a special counselor to the attorney general in Florida. The 81-year-old former Justice Department lawyer, who served as U.S. Attorney in Washington for part of the 1980s, is expected to work on the Brennan investigation. His appointment as counsel to the attorney general had been anticipated as a sign that the DOJ intended to press forward on the Russia probe's origins.

DiGenova is no stranger to political controversy. He later supported legal efforts by President Trump to challenge the results of the 2020 election. In a separate episode, he said that Chris Krebs, a top Trump administration cybersecurity official who stated the 2020 election was not tainted by fraud, "should be killed." DiGenova later apologized, and a lawsuit Krebs filed against him was eventually withdrawn.

Critics will seize on diGenova's history to argue the investigation is politically motivated. But the question that matters is whether Brennan told the truth under oath. A grand jury is the mechanism the justice system uses to answer that question. The subpoenas suggest prosecutors believe they have enough to put the matter before one.

The accountability question

Brennan served as CIA director under President Barack Obama. His role in the 2017 intelligence assessment placed him at the center of one of the most consequential, and contested, episodes in modern American politics. Brennan's conduct during and after the Russia probe has drawn sustained scrutiny from Republicans who believe senior intelligence officials abused their authority to target a political opponent.

The January 2017 assessment was not a routine product. It shaped years of media coverage, fueled a special counsel investigation, consumed an entire presidential term, and divided the country. If the people who assembled it misrepresented its origins or methods to Congress, that is not a technicality. It goes to the integrity of the intelligence community's most sensitive work.

The broader pattern, roughly 30 subpoenas touching former officials from the Obama era, suggests the Justice Department views the 2016-era intelligence activity not as a closed chapter but as an open case. Strzok and Page, whose anti-Trump text messages became a flashpoint during the Mueller investigation, are now among those drawn back into the legal process. Clapper, who publicly promoted the collusion narrative for years on cable news, faces his own subpoena.

For Americans who watched the Russia investigation consume Washington for years, the question was always whether anyone would be held accountable if the probe's foundations turned out to be rotten. The Obama administration's handling of sensitive national security matters has faced growing retrospective criticism, and the Brennan investigation is the most direct legal test of that conduct to date.

Open questions remain

Much about the investigation is still unclear. The names of the subpoenaed witnesses have not been publicly disclosed. The specific false statements Brennan is alleged to have made before the Judiciary Committee have not been detailed in public reporting. No federal statutes under investigation have been identified. And the exact reason for Long's departure, whether it was a disagreement over evidence, legal strategy, or something else, remains murky.

What is clear is the direction of travel. A grand jury in Washington is now hearing from witnesses. A veteran prosecutor with deep ties to the legal establishment has been installed to oversee the work. And the Justice Department, despite losing a key prosecutor on the case, moved within days to issue new subpoenas and bring in new leadership.

None of this guarantees an indictment. Grand juries investigate; they do not always charge. But the machinery of federal prosecution is now engaged in a way it was not before.

For years, the men who built the Russia narrative operated with the assumption that they would never face the kind of legal scrutiny they directed at others. That assumption is being tested.