# To the Trump Administration, on the Vendetta Against John Brennan > Mr. President, Mr. Acting Attorney General, I am writing to you about a matter that should alarm anyone who still believes in - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Open letter - Published: 2026-07-06 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/a-l-administration-trump-sur-l-acharnement-contre-john-brennan ## Key takeaways - Brennan filed a lawsuit on July 1, 2026 in federal court in Washington asking that DOJ records tied to investigations of him be preserved before any possible indictment, citing risks from ephemeral messaging apps like Signal. - The article traces the case to the 2017 intelligence assessment on Russian interference in 2016, which Trump calls a "Russia hoax," and to criminal referrals from Jim Jordan and John Ratcliffe. - According to CNN and the Washington Post, career prosecutor Maria Medetis Long was removed after voicing doubts about the case and was replaced by Joe DiGenova, who was tasked with speeding up charges. - Brennan's lawyers allege "procedurally irregular activity" meant to satisfy the president's directives; the article notes over 130 subpoenas in a wider "grand conspiracy" probe that also involves Comey and McCabe. - The author points to earlier failed prosecutions of Comey and Brennan in Virginia and Pennsylvania, and says the DOJ's move to Florida suggests forum shopping. ## 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 **DOJ** **records** 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 **judge** **Jia 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. *When a former CIA director has to beg a judge just to keep emails intact, something has stopped working properly inside the American judicial machine.* ## 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. *When a prosecutor is pulled off a case simply for refusing to rush an indictment, no one is looking for justice anymore — they're looking for a predetermined outcome.* ## 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. *A hundred and thirty subpoenas for an investigation that still hasn't produced a single formal charge after years looks a lot more like an intimidation campaign than a sincere search for the truth.* ## 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 **criminal** **investigation** 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**. *Actively hunting for the most favorable court after two judicial failures isn't legal persistence — it's an admission that the case doesn't hold up anywhere else.* ## 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. *A list of political enemies a mile long, and zero convictions at the end of it: at some point, the statistics themselves become a form of evidence.* ## What I am asking of you, concretely ### Total preservation, without exception Mr. Acting **Attorney General** **Todd Blanche**, I am asking you, just as **Brennan** himself is asking before **Judge** **Jia 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**. *An administration confident in the strength of its case would have nothing to lose by documenting and preserving everything. It's the silence, not the transparency, that should worry us.* ## 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. *Defending democracy abroad while weakening it at home is a balancing act that will eventually collapse if no one calls it out clearly.* ## 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. *As long as there are prosecutors who say no and judges who document abuse, the system isn't completely broken. But the margin for maneuver is shrinking dangerously.* ## 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 day this kind of news no longer makes headlines is the day we've collectively accepted that the abnormal has become the norm. I refuse that resignation.* ## The urgency of a clear judicial answer ### What Judge Cobb must decide Federal **judge** **Jia 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. *This ruling, however technical it may look on the surface, will be scrutinized well beyond legal circles. It will say something essential about the state of American democracy in 2026.* ## 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. *The difference between a democracy and an authoritarian regime isn't measured by its speeches, but by its ability to resist the temptation to prosecute its political opponents.* ## 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 **selective** **prosecution** — 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. *A request as measured as simply preserving documents should never meet resistance from a government that claims to have nothing to hide.* ## 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. *If this precedent takes hold, the question will no longer be whether your political camp will be targeted someday, only when.* ## 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. *When Congress abandons its role as a check for political convenience, it leaves the courts alone to carry the burden of protecting democracy. That's a burden they shouldn't have to carry alone.* ## 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. **Judge** **Jia 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. *I write this letter not against America, but for the America it claims to be: one that protects its institutions even when doing so is politically uncomfortable.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## 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 --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/a-l-administration-trump-sur-l-acharnement-contre-john-brennan