On October 21, 2025, a political storm swept through Washington as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) formally referred former CIA Director John Brennan to the Department of Justice, recommending criminal prosecution. The move, which Jordan announced publicly and detailed in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, centers on allegations that Brennan knowingly made false statements to Congress during a transcribed interview in May 2023—statements that, according to Jordan, contradict established records and declassified documents from multiple intelligence sources.
The heart of the matter is Brennan’s testimony regarding the infamous Steele dossier—a collection of memos compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The dossier, funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, accused then-candidate Donald Trump and his associates of conspiring with Russian operatives during the 2016 presidential election. The dossier’s claims, though ultimately discredited, played a pivotal role in the FBI’s decision to initiate surveillance on Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser, and in shaping the broader narrative of Russian interference.
According to The Federalist, Jordan’s referral asserts that Brennan “made numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact contradicted by the record established by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the CIA.” Chief among these was Brennan’s denial that the CIA relied on or was involved with the Steele dossier when drafting the post-election Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in 2017—a report that concluded Russia preferred Trump and sought to aid his campaign. Jordan’s letter pulls no punches: “Brennan’s assertion that the CIA was not ‘involved at all’ with the Steele dossier cannot be reconciled with the facts.”
During his 2023 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Brennan repeatedly insisted that neither he nor the CIA had analyzed the dossier or played any role in its inclusion in the ICA. When pressed by then-Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Brennan responded, “No, I was not involved in analyzing the dossier at all.” He further stated, “I said the first time I actually saw it, it was after the election. And the CIA was not involved at all with the dossier. You can direct that to the FBI and to others.” Brennan acknowledged that he was aware of the FBI’s involvement, explaining, “Yes, because there’s an annex in the ICA, the Intelligence Community Assessment, that the Bureau asked to be included in there. It was their purview, their area, not ours at all.”
Yet, declassified records and the findings of the HPSCI report tell a different story. As reported by The Federalist and corroborated by other outlets, two senior CIA officers advised that the dossier “failed to meet basic tradecraft standards” and should not be included in the ICA. Despite these objections, Brennan allegedly overrode their concerns. One official recounted that when confronted with the dossier’s flaws, Brennan replied, “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?” Jordan contends that this willingness to include uncorroborated information contradicts Brennan’s sworn statements to Congress and undermines the integrity of the committee’s oversight responsibilities.
Brennan’s role in shaping the ICA and the broader Russia collusion narrative has long been a flashpoint for partisan debate. In his referral, Jordan highlighted not only the May 2023 testimony but also a 2017 exchange between Brennan and then-Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), in which Brennan claimed the dossier “was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community assessment.” Jordan argued that this statement, too, was contradicted by the record, and while it falls outside the five-year statute of limitations for prosecution, it “indicates a pattern of Brennan’s willingness to lie to Congress about the Steele dossier.”
The referral letter, which Jordan posted online for public scrutiny, asserts: “Making false statements before Congress is a crime that undermines the integrity of the Committee’s constitutional duty to conduct oversight.” Jordan urged the Justice Department to “examine whether any of Brennan’s testimony warrants a charge for the violation of federal law.”
Legal experts have weighed in on the potential implications. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, previously observed that Brennan could be particularly vulnerable to prosecution over his Russiagate testimony: “It does appear that a couple of these figures may have committed perjury. I think the most vulnerable may be Brennan, who’s like a 30-point buck now out in the open. I mean, this stuff goes directly to information that he gave to Congress. It seems to be in contradiction.” Turley added, “These individuals, whether it’s Comey or Brennan, are not protected from perjury charges if the statute of limitations has not run. They are more likely to be called again to repeat prior testimony.”
Brennan’s referral comes on the heels of similar actions taken against other high-profile intelligence officials. Former FBI Director James Comey, for example, was recently referred to the DOJ and subsequently indicted for allegedly lying to Congress. The pattern suggests a growing appetite among House Republicans to pursue accountability for what they perceive as abuses of power and misinformation at the highest levels of the intelligence community.
Jordan’s referral also underscores the continued political reverberations of the Russia investigation and the Steele dossier’s legacy. The dossier, which at one point was treated as a bombshell revelation, has since been widely discredited. As PJ Media and The Post Millennial noted, the FBI relied on the dossier’s unverified claims to justify surveillance of Trump campaign officials—actions that have since faced bipartisan criticism for overreach and lack of substantiation.
Yet, the Justice Department’s response to congressional criminal referrals is often measured. As TNND pointed out, such referrals typically carry limited legal weight unless accompanied by new or compelling evidence. The DOJ, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, will now determine whether to pursue charges against Brennan based on the evidence provided and the findings of its own investigators.
For his part, Brennan has continued to defend his actions and the work of the intelligence community during his tenure. In a recent New York Times op-ed co-authored with former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Brennan reiterated the claim that “the dossier was not used as a source or taken into account for any of its analysis or conclusions.” However, Jordan and his Republican colleagues maintain that the documentary record paints a different picture—one in which the CIA, under Brennan’s leadership, played a more active role in advancing the Russia collusion narrative than previously acknowledged.
As the Justice Department considers its next steps, the case against Brennan is sure to remain a lightning rod for controversy. With memories of the 2016 election and its aftermath still fresh, the battle over the Steele dossier’s legacy and the integrity of America’s intelligence agencies shows no sign of fading. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for congressional oversight, executive accountability, and the public’s trust in the nation’s institutions.
Whatever decision the Justice Department makes, the referral marks another chapter in the ongoing reckoning with the events and investigations that shaped American politics over the past decade.
