Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the charges against John Brennan in the alleged plot against Trump?
Executive Summary
The reporting shows no credible allegation that John Brennan was charged in any assassination or murder-for-hire plot targeting Donald Trump; the criminal cases tied to such plots name other defendants and involve foreign-backed schemes [1] [2]. Separately, the Justice Department in late 2025 prepared grand jury subpoenas related to an investigation of Brennan over alleged false statements to Congress about the Steele dossier and the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, but no indictment had been publicly filed as of the latest coverage [3].
1. The direct accusation that Brennan is charged in a Trump assassination plot: what reporting actually shows
Contemporary coverage of alleged assassination or murder-for-hire schemes targeting Trump identifies specific defendants and foreign-state connections; none of the articles names John Brennan as a defendant. The September 2024 reporting on an Iranian-backed assassination plot cites Asif Merchant and discusses Iranian involvement and whistleblower disclosures, with no mention of Brennan [1]. Subsequent Justice Department filings and DOJ announcements about murder-for-hire charges list other individuals such as Farhad Shakeri, Carlisle Rivera, and Jonathan Loadholt in connection with schemes directed at Trump and others, and those filings carry conventional criminal counts tied to murder-for-hire conspiracies [4] [2]. The factual record in those stories assigns criminal liability to those named defendants, not to Brennan.
2. The separate Brennan probe: what the late-2025 grand jury activity reportedly targets
Reporting from November 6, 2025, describes the Department of Justice preparing to issue grand jury subpoenas in a probe into former CIA Director John Brennan, supervised by the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida. The material under scrutiny centers on alleged false statements Brennan gave to Congress in 2023 about the CIA’s handling of the Steele dossier and the role of the dossier in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. The Judiciary Committee’s referral and public claims by Representative Jim Jordan assert that Brennan “willfully and intentionally” made false statements, and the DOJ action reflects an escalation toward potential criminal review, though no public indictment had been announced [3].
3. The specific criminal theory being advanced against Brennan in the congressional referral
The referral alleges Brennan made false statements in transcribed testimony by denying the CIA relied on the Steele dossier or that he saw it before the election, while declassified emails and committee findings allegedly show he supported including dossier material in the Intelligence Community Assessment. The legal hook cited by committee materials and media coverage is the federal false-statements statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and the claim outlines a pattern of allegedly inconsistent statements stretching back to Brennan’s prior congressional testimony in 2017. Reports note the Judiciary Committee framed these inconsistencies as intentional misrepresentations warranting criminal investigation, though the DOJ remains the decision-maker on any charging determination [5] [6].
4. Evidence cited in the public reports and points of factual conflict
Articles point to declassified documents, emails, and internal CIA arguments over including the Steele dossier in assessments as the evidentiary core used to challenge Brennan’s testimony. Some reporting quotes a retired FBI agent and references an email suggesting Brennan found dossier reporting “credible enough” for inclusion, which contradicts Brennan’s claimed timeline about when he first saw the dossier. At the same time, prior special-counsel reviews, including John Durham’s work, previously did not find criminality by Brennan, and Brennan has publicly denied wrongdoing. The reporting presents contradictory threads: newly declassified internal documents that committees assert undermine Brennan’s testimony versus earlier investigatory conclusions that cleared him [7] [8].
5. The political terrain: why stakeholders emphasize different narratives
House Republican leaders and Judiciary Committee members frame the referral and DOJ activity as accountability for perceived Obama-era misconduct, using the Brennan matter to argue for criminal consequences similar to other prosecutions. Conservative commentators and legal advocates predict aggressive grand-jury use. Conversely, critics stress that prior investigations found no criminal conduct and caution that committee-made public conclusions can reflect partisan aims rather than prosecutable offenses. The public record shows partisan incentives clearly in play, with Republicans urging prosecution and Brennan and some neutral reviews disputing assertions of criminality; this political context matters because it shapes what evidence committees declassify and the public framing of DOJ steps [5] [8].
6. The bottom line: what is charged, what is under investigation, and what remains unresolved
As of the latest reporting, John Brennan was not charged in any assassination or murder-for-hire plots against Donald Trump; those criminal cases name other defendants and involve foreign-backed plots [1] [2]. Brennan is the subject of a separate DOJ grand-jury probe arising from a congressional referral alleging false statements about the Steele dossier and the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment; the DOJ was preparing subpoenas but had not publicly returned an indictment. The unresolved questions are whether the grand jury will find sufficient evidence to indict and how this probe will be informed by previously declassified documents and earlier special-counsel findings that did not recommend prosecution [3].