To the Trump Administration, on the Vendetta Against John Brennan

Introduction: a letter that cannot wait

Why I am writing to you today

Mr. President, Mr. Acting Attorney General, I am writing to you about a matter that should alarm anyone who still believes in the independence of American justice: the lawsuit filed on July 1, 2026 by the former director of the CIA, John Brennan, before a federal court in Washington. This lawsuit asks for nothing revolutionary. It simply asks that the Department of Justice preserve the records tied to the investigations targeting him, before any potential indictment is filed.

The mere fact that a former senior American intelligence official has to turn to the courts to guarantee that emails and messages are not destroyed should, on its own, give us pause. This is not a partisan request. It is a request for basic transparency.

What the complaint actually says

According to the 46-page complaint filed by Brennan's lawyers and reported by Reuters, the former director claims that internal DOJrecords risk being lost, in part because administration officials are using ephemeral messaging apps like Signal, without complying with the legal obligations to retain government records. His request seeks an order from federal judgeJia Cobb forcing the preservation of more than ten categories of internal documents.

This is not a trivial technicality. It is the very condition that will allow some future court to one day assess whether the case against Brennan stems from a legitimate justice decision or a political settling of scores.

The origins of this vendetta

An investigation that dates back to 2016

To grasp the scope of this case, we need to go back to the 2017 intelligence community assessment, which concluded that Russia had sought to favor Donald Trump's candidacy in the 2016 election. Brennan was leading the CIA at the time, under the Barack Obama administration. Ever since, Trump has never stopped calling that assessment a "Russia hoax" and naming Brennan as one of his most hated adversaries.

In October 2025, House Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan formally recommended that the DOJ pursue criminal charges against Brennan, accusing him of lying during his 2023 testimony before Congress. Current CIA director John Ratcliffe himself forwarded a criminal referral targeting Brennan to FBI director Kash Patel.

A prosecutor removed for excess zeal, in reverse

What makes this case even more troubling is what happened behind the scenes. According to reporting from CNN and the Washington Post, career prosecutor Maria Medetis Long, who initially oversaw the investigation into Brennan in the Southern District of Florida, was removed from the case after voicing concerns about its strength and her reluctance to bring charges quickly. She was replaced by Joe DiGenova, a pro-Trump lawyer known for promoting 2020 election fraud theories, appointed "counselor to the attorney general" in April 2026 with the explicit mandate to speed up charges against Brennan.

Removing a career prosecutor because she won't move fast enough in a politically desired direction is not justice. It is judicial engineering in service of a presidential objective.

What Brennan is actually alleging

A prosecution described as vindictive

In his complaint, Brennan states bluntly that "President Trump has been condemning and demanding [his] prosecution for years," according to excerpts cited by Bloomberg. His lawyers go further, accusing certain DOJ officials of engaging in "procedurally irregular activity in order to manufacture a case that will satisfy the president's directives." These are heavy words, but they rest on a documented public timeline, not on vague insinuation.

The complaint also notes that officials, from the acting attorney general up to the FBI director, publicly branded Brennan a criminal before any formal indictment had even been filed — a complete reversal of the presumption of innocence that should, in principle, protect every American citizen.

The specter of a broader "conspiracy"

Brennan's complaint does not stop at his own case. It also seeks the preservation of records tied to a broader investigation into an alleged "grand conspiracy" that the DOJ is said to be building against several former federal officials who, like him, took part in the 2016 Russia interference investigations. This wider probe also includes former FBI director James Comey, subpoenaed since March 2026 as part of the same investigation, as well as former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, among other former officials.

More than 130 people are said to have already received subpoenas as part of this sprawling investigation, according to reporting by CBS News and picked up by several American outlets. That is the scale of an institutional witch hunt, not a targeted, proportionate inquiry.

The White House's silence

No comment, plenty of subtext

Faced with this lawsuit, the White House has stayed silent, based on the information available at the time of writing. But that silence clashes violently with Trump's own past statements, when he claimed in July 2025 that Brennan and Comey were "corrupt to the core" and should "pay the price," remarks reported by Fox News.

A president who publicly voices his wish to see a political adversary punished, and whose administration then actually launches a criminalinvestigation against that same person, cannot claim judicial neutrality. The timeline speaks for itself.

The Comey precedent, a warning sign

The case of James Comey offers a troubling preview of what may await Brennan. An attempt to indict Comey already suffered a judicial setback in December 2025, when a federal judge blocked a renewed DOJ attempt to prosecute him, according to PBS NewsHour. Two earlier attempts to prosecute Comey and Brennan, in Virginia and Pennsylvania, had already failed, pushing the DOJ to seek friendlier ground in Florida, where a Trump-appointed judge and a potentially more favorable jury pool could, according to several observers, change the outcome.

The very act of shopping for a perceived friendlier court shows just how much this case appears to be driven by a desired outcome rather than the strength of the evidence.

Why transparency must come first

The principle that outweighs Brennan the man

I am not claiming here to judge the guilt or innocence of John Brennan on the substance of the false-statements-to-Congress allegations. That is not my role, and no court has ruled on the question yet. But I can say without hesitation that the principle behind his lawsuit is sound: in a functioning democracy, government records relevant to an investigation should never be at risk of vanishing simply because the administration in power prefers to communicate through apps that leave no trace.

This principle would protect any American citizen, regardless of political affiliation, against the arbitrary use of state power. That is precisely why this lawsuit deserves to be followed closely, beyond any personal sympathy or antipathy toward Brennan himself.

What history will remember

None of the political adversaries targeted by this administration's investigations — from Liz Cheney to Adam Schiff, by way of Letitia James and Jack Smith — has so far been formally convicted after years of sweeping inquiries. That fact, documented by multiple journalistic analyses, raises a simple question: if these investigations were built on solid evidence rather than a desire for retribution, why have they produced no tangible judicial result after all this time?

That question, more than any other, should guide the public's assessment of the Brennan case in the months ahead.

What I am asking of you, concretely

Total preservation, without exception

Mr. Acting Attorney GeneralTodd Blanche, I am asking you, just as Brennan himself is asking before JudgeJia Cobb, to publicly commit to preserving all internal communications tied to this investigation, including emails, text messages, relevant queries on artificial-intelligence platforms, and calendar entries. An administration with nothing to hide should have no hesitation formally committing to this.

This preservation should not require a court order. It should be a given for any administration that respects federal legal obligations around retaining government records.

A public clarification that is owed

I am also asking you, Mr. President, to publicly clarify whether your past statements about Brennan and Comey influenced, in any way, your Department of Justice's prosecutorial decisions. Replacing a career prosecutor with an openly partisan lawyer deserves a public explanation, not prolonged silence.

Public trust in the independence of American justice is not rebuilt through vague statements, but through concrete acts of transparency.

The international dimension of this case

America's image is on the line

This case reaches beyond American borders. In a world where China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea constantly look to discredit Western democracies by pointing to their internal contradictions, every example of justice weaponized for political ends in the United States becomes propaganda ammunition for these authoritarian regimes. An America that claims to defend the rule of law internationally must first respect it at home.

Western allies, too, are watching this kind of drift closely. America's credibility as leader of the free world rests in part on its ability to show that its own judicial institutions remain independent of the executive branch, no matter who occupies the White House.

The paradox of a two-speed presidency

I remain convinced that Trump is right to push NATO allies to invest more in their collective defense against Russia, and that his firmness on this front serves Western interests. But that same firmness, when turned against domestic judicial institutions to punish political opponents, becomes a threat to the very foundations of the democracy he claims to defend abroad.

One cannot preach the rule of law in Kyiv while trampling it in Washington. That contradiction deserves to be named without flinching.

The voices still holding the line

The courage of career prosecutors

In this troubled context, we should salute the courage of career prosecutors like Maria Medetis Long, who refused to bend to political pressure to rush charges on a case they judged weak. This kind of internal resistance, quiet and rarely covered, is one of the last remaining safeguards against the complete politicization of the American judicial system.

Federal judges, appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents alike, have also begun documenting instances of what they consider irregular conduct by DOJ attorneys, according to an October 2025 report from the Brennan Center for Justice. That report notes that one judge even accused department lawyers of "manipulating" his court.

The irreplaceable role of the courts

It is precisely because these internal mechanisms of resistance still exist, even if weakened, that Brennan's legal approach retains meaning. By turning to a federal judge rather than settling for public denunciations, he is betting on the courts' ability to maintain a minimum check on the executive — a risky but necessary bet in the current climate.

The outcome of this preservation request, expected in the coming weeks, will be a valuable indicator of how much strength remains in American judicial independence.

What this case reveals about our era

The normalization of the abnormal

What should shock us about this case is becoming almost mundane: a former senior official has to sue his own government to make sure potential evidence isn't destroyed before a trial that hasn't even begun. Five years ago, a situation like this would have dominated the headlines for weeks. Today, it just adds to a long list of similar cases involving other former officials.

This gradual normalization of practices once considered extraordinary may be the most insidious danger of this period in American politics, more so than any single case.

The role of the press and the public

Faced with this normalization, the role of an independent press and an informed public becomes even more crucial. Every article, every analysis, every question raised publicly about this case helps maintain the pressure needed to keep these practices from becoming the permanently accepted norm of the American political system.

It is in that spirit that this open letter was written: not to take sides in a partisan debate, but to recall principles that should transcend political lines.

The urgency of a clear judicial answer

What Judge Cobb must decide

Federal judgeJia Cobb, appointed by former president Joe Biden, now bears the responsibility of ruling on this preservation request. Whatever her decision, it will send an important signal about the federal judiciary's ability to rein in administrative record-keeping practices, independent of the political pressures surrounding this particular case.

A ruling favorable to Brennan would not prejudge his guilt or innocence on the substance of any eventual charges. It would simply affirm a basic principle: evidence must be preserved before it is judged, not selectively destroyed at the convenience of those running the investigation.

A test for the whole system

Beyond John Brennan's personal fate, this judicial decision will become a symbolic test for the entire American system of checks and balances. If the federal courts manage to impose record-keeping discipline even against the executive's wishes, it will send a reassuring signal about the resilience of American democratic institutions under sustained political pressure.

If, on the other hand, this request fails or drags on indefinitely without clear resolution, that too will be a revealing signal — just in the opposite direction.

A call for consistency, not complacency

What I am not asking for

I am not calling here for the abandonment of legitimate investigations into the past conduct of American intelligence officials, if solid evidence of real wrongdoing exists. No former official, however senior, should be above the law simply because of a record of public service.

What I am asking is that these investigations follow a regular, transparent process, free of direct political interference from the top of the executive branch, built on solid evidence rather than premature public declarations of guilt.

The line America must not cross

A democracy worthy of the name can prosecute its former officials for genuine crimes. What it cannot do is turn its judicial apparatus into an instrument of personal revenge against political critics, without risking the loss of what fundamentally distinguishes it from the authoritarian regimes it claims to fight internationally.

That line, thin but essential, is exactly what this administration must uphold in handling the Brennan case and all similar cases currently underway.

What Brennan himself acknowledges

A defense that doesn't dodge the underlying debate

It's worth noting that Brennan is not claiming to be above judicial scrutiny. His lawyers explicitly state that if an indictment is ever filed, he will vigorously contest it as the product of a vindictive and selectiveprosecution — but that fight would happen before a court, under established rules, not through a mere public statement.

That is a stance that respects the institutions while seeking protection from them, a difficult but necessary balance in the current political climate.

A limited and precise request

Brennan's current request remains deliberately narrow: it does not seek to halt the investigation itself, nor to obtain a preliminary ruling on the merits of the case. It aims solely to guarantee that the evidence needed for a legitimate future defense does not disappear before a court can examine it. That is a remarkably modest ask, given the seriousness of the charges potentially hanging over him.

This restraint in the request should, logically, make it easier for the court to grant — unless the administration has reasons to oppose it that should themselves be made public.

The Comey precedent as a warning

Repeated judicial failures

The fact that two earlier attempts to prosecute Comey already failed in Virginia and Pennsylvania, before a renewed attempt was blocked by a federal judge in December 2025, should serve as a clear warning. A case that keeps failing before different courts, in different jurisdictions, is probably not simply the victim of judicial bad luck.

This repeated pattern of court-shopping, documented by several serious outlets, illustrates a strategy that prioritizes the desired political outcome over the legal strength of the case itself.

The risk of a dangerous precedent

If this strategy were to succeed in Brennan's case, it would create a dangerous precedent for any future government, of whatever political leaning, tempted to use the same mechanism to pursue its own political adversaries once in power. This is a cycle of judicial retaliation that, once set in motion, becomes extremely difficult to stop.

That is precisely why the current judicial pushback, embodied in Brennan's preservation request, deserves support on principle, regardless of any personal sympathy toward the man himself.

Congress's responsibility in this case

An oversight power left largely unused

The US Congress holds, in theory, considerable oversight powers over Department of Justice practices, including the ability to hold public hearings on allegations of politically motivated prosecutions. Yet the current Republican majority has remained largely silent in the face of the accusations raised by Brennan and his lawyers, preferring to avoid a case that could embarrass the administration in power.

This legislative silence is not neutral. It sends the implicit message that Congress considers this kind of drift acceptable as long as it serves the political interests of the majority in power — a dangerous precedent regardless of which party holds power in the future.

The Democratic opposition and its limits

On the Democratic side, several lawmakers have publicly denounced what they call a campaign of political retaliation, but their capacity for concrete action remains limited as long as they stay a minority in both chambers of Congress. Their statements, however sincere, struggle to translate into real oversight mechanisms against an executive branch determined to pursue its legal strategy.

This relative legislative powerlessness reinforces, by default, the importance of the judicial branch as the last real check available in this case, which makes Judge Cobb's upcoming decision all the more significant.

Conclusion: what history will remember of this moment

A test for American democracy

This open letter is not meant to exonerate John Brennan or turn him into a martyr. Its purpose, rather, is to recall a simple but fundamental principle: in a functioning democracy, no one — not the ordinary citizen, not the former CIA director — should have to fight in court simply to guarantee that potential evidence isn't destroyed before a fair trial.

JudgeJia Cobb's ruling on this preservation request, expected in the coming weeks, will be scrutinized well beyond the narrow circle of Washington legal observers. It will say something essential about the current state of American judicial independence under sustained executive pressure.

What I will keep following

I will keep following this case with the same rigor I apply to every issue touching the rule of law, whether it concerns Washington, Kyiv, or any other capital where democracy is being tested. This Brennan case is not an isolated incident; it fits within a broader trend that demands constant vigilance from everyone who cares about the future of Western democratic institutions.

America remains, despite its current flaws, an essential pillar of the West against authoritarian regimes. That is exactly why its own internal missteps deserve to be called out without complacency, out of loyalty to what this country is supposed to represent.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my declared biases

I am a pro-Western columnist, in favor of a firm stance against Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, and generally supportive of Trump's firmness on military matters and collective defense within NATO. But I remain critical, even harsh, toward the internal judicial drift of his administration when it appears aimed at political adversaries rather than genuine, proven criminal acts.

This open letter reflects that dual standard: supporting Western firmness internationally while demanding democratic rigor within American borders.

What I don't know, and my method

I do not know whether John Brennan actually lied to Congress in 2023, nor whether an indictment will ever be filed against him. Those questions remain exclusively for the competent courts to decide. My method consisted of cross-referencing recognized journalistic sources and public court records to build this analysis, without ever inventing a quote or a direct testimony. No report or court ruling has been presented as final if it was not final at the time of writing.

Sources

Primary sources

Reuters — Ex-CIA chief Brennan, a Trump target, seeks to force DOJ to preserve records — July 1, 2026

Bloomberg — Ex-CIA Chief Brennan Alleges 'Vindictive' DOJ Criminal Probe — July 1, 2026

Axios — John Brennan sues to preserve probe records — July 1, 2026

Secondary sources

CNN — Trump foe John Brennan sues administration demanding records be preserved — July 1, 2026

The Washington Post — Ex-CIA Director John Brennan seeks court order requiring records preserved — July 1, 2026

PBS NewsHour — Federal judge sets back Justice Department's effort to seek new indictment against Comey — December 2025

Brennan Center for Justice — The Department of Justice's Broken Accountability System — October 2025