BREAKING: House Judiciary Committee Refers Former CIA Director John Brennan for Criminal Prosecution

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a stunning escalation that could mark one of the most significant legal challenges ever brought against a former U.S. intelligence chief, the House Judiciary Committee has formally referred former CIA Director John Brennan for criminal prosecution, alleging that he made “numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact” to Congress and federal investigators.

The referral, announced late Tuesday following months of closed-door testimony and document reviews, accuses Brennan of misleading lawmakers about key intelligence assessments and communications during his tenure as head of the CIA — particularly surrounding the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation and internal intelligence coordination during the 2016 election.

“John Brennan made numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact,” the committee’s letter states, adding that “such conduct represents a grave violation of federal law and a breach of public trust.”

The committee, led by Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), has asked the Department of Justice to open a formal criminal inquiry into Brennan’s actions. The referral cites multiple instances where Brennan’s testimony, emails, and written statements allegedly contradict classified intelligence records and witness accounts gathered by congressional investigators.

Allegations of False Testimony and Political Bias

According to the committee’s report, Brennan is accused of providing misleading testimony about the extent of coordination between the CIA and the FBI during the early stages of the “Crossfire Hurricane” probe — the counterintelligence investigation that examined potential links between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives in 2016.

Lawmakers allege Brennan downplayed his involvement in sharing intelligence that ultimately led to the surveillance of several Trump campaign figures, and that he concealed internal dissent among analysts who questioned the strength of evidence supporting claims of Russian interference or collusion.

“Director Brennan’s statements under oath are now in direct conflict with the documentary record,” the referral states. “The discrepancies cannot be explained by memory lapse or clerical error — they demonstrate a clear pattern of intent to deceive.”

The report further claims Brennan may have “used his official position to influence intelligence conclusions for political purposes,” echoing long-running Republican accusations that elements within the intelligence community sought to damage then-candidate Trump during the 2016 election.

Brennan Denies Wrongdoing, Calls Referral ‘Political Retaliation’

Brennan, who served as CIA Director from 2013 to 2017 under President Obama, immediately pushed back, calling the criminal referral “a desperate stunt designed to intimidate public servants and rewrite history.”

In a statement released through his spokesperson, Brennan said:

“I have always told the truth to Congress and the American people. These baseless accusations are nothing more than a politically motivated smear by those who wish to erase the intelligence community’s warnings about Russian election interference.”

He added that he stands by “every word” of his testimony and expressed confidence that “the Justice Department will see this referral for what it is — an abuse of congressional authority for partisan gain.”

A Deepening Political Divide

The criminal referral of Brennan represents the latest flashpoint in the GOP’s broader effort to investigate alleged misconduct within U.S. intelligence agencies — what conservatives often refer to as the “weaponization” of the federal government.

Chairman Jordan’s committee has been aggressively pursuing former intelligence and law enforcement officials, arguing that figures like Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, and former DNI James Clapper misled the public about the legitimacy of the Trump-Russia narrative.

Republican members say the referral is based on “substantial documentary evidence,” including classified communications, internal memos, and conflicting testimony from multiple intelligence officials.

“This isn’t about politics — it’s about truth and accountability,” said Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), a senior member of the committee. “When an official at the highest levels of intelligence lies under oath, it strikes at the foundation of our democracy.”

Democrats, meanwhile, denounced the move as a “politically motivated witch hunt,” warning that criminalizing disputes over intelligence interpretation could set a dangerous precedent.

“This is not justice, it’s vengeance,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). “Republicans are weaponizing congressional referrals to punish former officials who had the courage to speak out against Donald Trump.”

What Happens Next

The Department of Justice is under no obligation to act on the committee’s referral, but it must formally review the evidence submitted by lawmakers. Legal experts say the DOJ could either open a preliminary investigation, request additional documentation, or decline to pursue the matter altogether.

If federal prosecutors determine that Brennan knowingly made false statements under oath, he could face potential charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 — a statute that criminalizes false statements to Congress and carries penalties of up to five years in prison per count.

However, former Justice Department officials note that criminal referrals from Congress are rarely prosecuted, especially when they involve politically charged testimony or classified matters.

“The legal bar for proving intent to deceive is extremely high,” said Daniel Levin, a former federal prosecutor and national security attorney. “Unless there’s clear-cut documentary evidence of knowing falsehood, DOJ is unlikely to move forward.”

A Battle Over Truth and Trust

For now, the Brennan referral has ignited yet another fierce round in Washington’s long-running war over the legacy of the 2016 election and the credibility of America’s intelligence institutions.

Whether or not prosecutors take action, the political fallout is already significant — with both parties using the moment to reinforce their broader narratives about corruption, accountability, and the rule of law.

“This referral isn’t just about John Brennan,” said political analyst Dr. Eleanor Marks of Georgetown University. “It’s about who Americans trust to tell the truth — their elected leaders, or their intelligence agencies. And right now, that trust is at a historic low.”