The Justice Department has turned to Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., and onetime legal counsel to President Donald Trump, to lead its ongoing investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan and others over the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche tapped diGenova to serve as counsel overseeing the matter, Fox News Digital reported, citing a New York Times report.
The move comes alongside a leadership shake-up inside the inquiry. Maria Medetis Long, a national security prosecutor in the South Florida U.S. attorney's office who had been running the case, was ousted from the investigation. A federal grand jury seated in Miami has been impaneled since late last year, and federal investigators have already issued subpoenas seeking information tied to intelligence assessments of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The reshuffle signals that the department is not winding down its scrutiny of Brennan, it is intensifying it. And the choice of diGenova, who has publicly accused Brennan of misconduct for years, makes the direction unmistakable.
Long's removal drew immediate attention. She had overseen a false statements probe related to Brennan as well as broader conspiracy-related investigations. The Washington Examiner reported that the reassignment came amid wider Justice Department changes following President Trump's firing of former Attorney General Pam Bondi and Blanche's rise to a more direct oversight role.
A DOJ spokesperson framed the change as routine. Just The News reported the spokesperson's statement:
"As a matter of routine practice, attorneys are moved around on cases so offices can most effectively allocate resources. It is completely healthy and normal to change members of legal teams."
Routine or not, replacing a career prosecutor with a well-known political figure like diGenova is not a minor staffing tweak. It is a deliberate escalation, and the department's critics know it.
The broader context of personnel upheaval at DOJ has been a running story. Supreme Court setbacks and DOJ frustrations drove Trump's decision to remove Pam Bondi, and the Brennan probe reshuffle fits the same pattern of a president demanding results from an institution he believes has slow-walked accountability for years.
DiGenova served as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. He later represented Trump during Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Long before the current probe, he was one of the most vocal critics of Brennan's conduct.
In a 2018 Fox News appearance, diGenova said Brennan colluded with the FBI and DOJ to frame Trump. That accusation, dismissed by Brennan's defenders as partisan overreach, now sits at the center of a federal investigation that diGenova himself will oversee.
Brennan, for his part, has denied wrongdoing related to the Russia investigation and has defended the intelligence community's assessment that Moscow interfered in the 2016 election. His allies will no doubt argue that installing a longtime critic to lead the probe taints the process. But the question the investigation aims to answer is whether Brennan's public denials hold up under oath, and whether the intelligence assessments themselves were shaped by political motives rather than evidence.
That question has only grown sharper. Brennan is being investigated over whether he gave false testimony to Congress in 2023 about efforts to include the Steele dossier in the intelligence community's assessment, Just The News noted. If true, that would mean a former CIA director lied to lawmakers about one of the most consequential intelligence products of the last decade.
The Miami grand jury's existence since late last year confirms the probe has moved well beyond a preliminary review. Grand juries issue subpoenas, compel testimony, and can return indictments. Federal investigators have already used subpoenas to seek information related to intelligence assessments of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Reuters previously reported that the Brennan investigation has recently accelerated, with witness interviews and subpoenas tied to the origins of the Trump-Russia inquiry, the Washington Examiner noted. That acceleration preceded diGenova's appointment, suggesting the case had already gained momentum under Long before the leadership change.
Still, no criminal charges have been filed. The allegations have not yet resulted in indictments, and the scope of "others" under investigation beyond Brennan remains unclear. Whether this probe produces charges or ends as another sprawling review with no courtroom conclusion is the central open question.
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment on the leadership change.
For years, conservatives have watched as investigations into the origins of the Russia probe produced damning findings but few consequences. The Durham investigation, which examined how the FBI opened its Trump-Russia case, resulted in acquittals at trial and only minor guilty pleas. The intelligence community's handling of the Steele dossier, a document funded by the Clinton campaign and riddled with unverified claims, was exposed as deeply flawed, yet no senior official faced prosecution.
Brennan sits at the intersection of those failures. As CIA director, he played a central role in shaping the intelligence community's public posture on Russian interference. Whether he crossed lines, by making false statements to Congress, by pushing unverified material into official assessments, or by coordinating improperly with the FBI, is what this investigation is supposed to determine.
The political backdrop is impossible to ignore. Brennan has been among the most outspoken former intelligence officials in opposing Trump. He has called for Trump's removal even while facing a DOJ investigation over alleged lies to Congress, a posture that strikes many observers as more activist than analyst.
Meanwhile, Trump's allies in Congress have pursued their own accountability efforts. House Intelligence Committee Republicans have called for expunging Trump's 2019 impeachment, arguing the proceedings were built on the same flawed Russia-investigation foundation now under federal scrutiny.
Legal scholars have weighed in as well. Alan Dershowitz has argued that declassified whistleblower memos bolster the case for revisiting the first impeachment, a sign that the fallout from the Russia probe's origins continues to ripple through Washington's institutions.
DiGenova now holds the reins. He brings a clear point of view, deep familiarity with the players, and a track record of public statements that leave little doubt about where he thinks the evidence leads. His critics will call it a conflict of interest. His supporters will call it putting someone in charge who actually wants to get to the bottom of it.
The grand jury in Miami is active. Subpoenas are out. Witnesses have been interviewed. The question is whether this investigation will do what previous ones could not: hold a powerful former intelligence official accountable under the same laws that apply to everyone else.
Americans who lived through the Russia-investigation era, the breathless leaks, the FISA abuses, the intelligence officials who went on cable news to insinuate treason against a sitting president, have waited a long time for someone to answer for it. Whether diGenova delivers remains to be seen. But the days of treating the origins of that investigation as settled and untouchable appear to be over.
