admin
On November 7, 2025 federal prosecutors moved to issue subpoenas to former CIA Director John Brennan and other ex-officials as part of a Justice Department review into the origins of the counterintelligence probe into President Trump’s 2016 campaign. This is not a sleepy paper-pushing matter — federal investigators are asking hard questions about whether America’s intelligence apparatus crossed the line from protecting the nation to picking winners and losers in our elections.
Conservatives have been warning for years about the politicization of the intelligence community, and now those warnings are being answered with tangible legal actions that probe who decided what the public should believe. The subpoenas target the people who helped shape the narrative about “Russian interference” and who advised media and government actors, a story that demands clarity from those who claimed the moral high ground.
John Brennan himself has publicly insisted he has no knowledge of any politically based DOJ probe, even as reporting indicates investigations are underway and subpoenas are being prepared. Brennan’s defensive posture and his heated media appearances only underscore why Congress and prosecutors must comb through the facts with no exceptions and no favoritism.
Part of this controversy stems from the now-infamous 2020 letter signed by more than 50 former intelligence officials that suggested early reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop had the “hallmarks” of a Russian information operation. That statement was used by Big Tech and legacy media to suppress the story, and for millions of Americans it raised the first of many questions about who was weaponizing intelligence analysis for political ends.
Republican leaders and conservative watchdogs have long demanded accountability, and the subpoenas are a welcome — if overdue — step toward investigating the investigators. Far from being a partisan witch hunt, this probe should be seen as an effort to restore public trust in institutions that have been allowed to operate in secrecy and, at times, in service of partisan narratives rather than objective national security.
Critics will try to frame these actions as retribution, but the real affront to the rule of law would be to sweep unanswered questions under the rug and let those who misled the public go unchallenged. Previous reviews, including high-profile probes, sometimes closed without consequences; that history only strengthens the argument that independent, transparent review is necessary when intelligence officials appear to have influenced election narratives.
Hardworking Americans deserve a government and an intelligence community that protects the republic, not a secretive class that meddles in politics. Lawmakers and prosecutors must pursue the truth with rigor and impartiality, and the public should demand nothing less than full airing of the facts so that the next generation can trust, once again, that patriotism — not partisanship — guides our intelligence services.
