ANOTHER DOJ Referral: Political Storm Brewing

American flag at Department of Justice building exterior

A significant escalation in political accountability unfolds as John Brennan faces potential prosecution for allegedly false congressional testimony.

Story Highlights

Jim Jordan refers ex-CIA Director John Brennan to the DOJ for prosecution.
The referral is based on alleged false testimony about the Steele dossier.
This marks the first such referral of a former CIA Director.
The DOJ’s decision could impact intelligence community cooperation.

Overview of the Referral

On October 22, 2025, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan sent a formal letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging the prosecution of former CIA Director John Brennan. The referral accuses Brennan of providing “knowing and willful” false statements during his 2023 congressional testimony about the controversial Steele dossier. The dossier had been a focal point in the investigation into alleged ties between President Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.

This referral, coming from a Republican-controlled committee, underscores an effort to hold intelligence officials accountable for their roles in the Trump-Russia investigation. Brennan’s credibility and the integrity of past intelligence assessments are now under scrutiny, raising questions about potential criminal liability for his statements made before Congress.

Historical and Political Context

John Brennan, who served as CIA Director from 2013 to 2017, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump since leaving office. The Steele dossier, compiled by Christopher Steele, was used to support FISA warrants against Trump campaign associates. However, subsequent investigations, including those by Inspector General Michael Horowitz and Special Counsel John Durham, found flaws in the dossier’s sourcing. This referral reflects ongoing Republican efforts to reframe the narrative around the Trump-Russia investigation.

The timing of the referral, coinciding with the conclusion of Durham’s investigation and ongoing congressional probes, highlights the persistent partisan divide over the investigation’s origins. Republicans, led by Jordan, seek to expose perceived misconduct and bias within the intelligence community, reinforcing narratives of a politically motivated “witch hunt” against Trump.

Potential Implications and Reactions

The Department of Justice must now decide whether to pursue prosecution, a decision that will test the balance between political accountability and prosecutorial discretion. The high legal threshold for proving Brennan’s statements were knowingly false complicates the case. Meanwhile, the intelligence community faces potential chilling effects if officials fear future prosecutions for testimony deemed incorrect or controversial.

Public and expert opinions are likely to diverge along partisan lines, with Republicans advocating for accountability and Democrats criticizing the move as retaliatory and politically charged. The outcome of this referral could set a precedent for how intelligence officials are held accountable for their public statements and testimony.