Lead: A federal grand jury issued subpoenas on Nov. 7, 2025, to three former intelligence and law‑enforcement officials tied to the government’s investigations into alleged Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. election. The subpoenas were served to former CIA Director John Brennan and two former FBI officials, counterintelligence specialist Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page, according to a source familiar with the matter. The source told CBS News the grand jury’s focus is the Trump‑Russia matter; additional subpoenas could follow. CBS News and other outlets have contacted the CIA, the Justice Department and the parties’ lawyers for comment.
Key Takeaways
- Three subpoenas were issued on Nov. 7, 2025, to John Brennan, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in connection with a federal grand‑jury probe into the Trump‑Russia issue.
- The grand jury is examining aspects of the investigations into alleged Russian election interference that began in 2016 under the FBI operation known as “Crossfire Hurricane.”
- Special counsel Robert Mueller later concluded Russia sought to assist Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and that the campaign was sometimes receptive; Mueller did not allege criminal coordination by the campaign.
- The CIA, then led by Brennan, and other agencies in 2017 assessed that Russia acted to influence the 2016 election and showed a preference for Trump, a finding that has remained politically contested.
- Previous reviews include the Justice Department inspector general’s probe (which found sufficient basis to open Crossfire Hurricane but identified procedural errors) and the later Durham review that criticized some FBI actions but produced limited criminal referrals.
- Media reporting indicates Fox News Digital first published notice of these subpoenas; CBS News reported the development citing a source.
- Officials and legal counsel have been contacted; as of reporting no public statements from the subpoenaed individuals or a formal DOJ announcement were available.
Background
The FBI opened “Crossfire Hurricane” in 2016 to investigate links between the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the presidential election. That investigation evolved over time and was ultimately taken up by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose report concluded that Russia undertook a campaign to influence the election and that members of the Trump campaign were at times receptive, though the report did not charge a criminal conspiracy by campaign principals.
In early 2017 the U.S. intelligence community—then led in public perception by CIA Director John Brennan—issued an assessment that Russia sought to influence the 2016 vote and had developed a preference for Trump. Those assessments and subsequent investigative steps became enduring points of political contention. President Trump and his allies have long characterized the inquiries as politically motivated, while investigators and many intelligence officials have defended the legitimacy of the work and its legal bases.
Subsequent formal examinations have produced mixed findings: the Justice Department inspector general said in its review that the FBI had adequate reason to open the probe but documented handling and process errors, especially regarding surveillance applications. Later, a review led by special counsel John Durham criticized parts of the FBI’s work and concluded some investigative openings were weak, although criminal referrals from that probe were few.
Main Event
According to a source who briefed CBS News, a federal grand jury issued subpoenas to John Brennan, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page on Nov. 7, 2025. The source said the subpoenas relate to the broader Trump‑Russia matter that has been the subject of multiple federal reviews since 2016. The grand jury process is investigative and can be used to compel testimony or documents; it does not itself indicate charges will follow.
Legal teams for Strzok and Page and representatives for Brennan were contacted; CBS reported outreach to the CIA and the Justice Department seeking comment. Fox News Digital was reported to have first published the names named in the subpoenas. The source indicated the probe could issue additional subpoenas in the days after Nov. 7, 2025.
The development arrives against a backdrop of continuing political debate over the origins and conduct of the Trump‑Russia investigations. The probe touches institutions and individuals who have been publicly criticized by former President Trump, including Brennan, whose security clearance was revoked during Trump’s first term, and whose public statements have been sharply critical of Trump’s handling of Russia‑related issues.
Analysis & Implications
Grand jury subpoenas to high‑profile former officials are legally ordinary but politically sensitive. Subpoenas to former intelligence and FBI officials can seek records, compel testimony about decision‑making, or probe who knew what and when. Because grand juries operate in secret, the timing and specific targets often reveal little about ultimate prosecutorial intentions; many subpoenas are investigative rather than precursors to charge filings.
Politically, the subpoenas will likely deepen partisan divisions. Supporters of the former president may view the subpoenas as validation of long‑standing critiques that post‑2016 probes were biased; opponents will see them as a routine legal step in examining alleged misconduct. Either reaction can shape public trust in intelligence and justice institutions, particularly ahead of contested political cycles.
For the intelligence community, subpoenas tied to assessments made in 2017 could spur renewed scrutiny of analytic tradecraft and interagency coordination. Declassification moves by officials—cited in reporting as coming from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard—have already intensified debate by releasing materials some interpret as undercutting previous intelligence conclusions; how legally probative those materials are in a grand‑jury context remains to be seen.
Legally, the presence of longstanding inspector general and special counsel reviews complicates any straightforward narrative. Prior probes established factual records about the basis for investigative openings and procedural faults; a grand jury can revisit unresolved questions or pursue new documentary evidence, but any criminal case would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and be subject to appeals and legal challenge.
Comparison & Data
| Investigation | Opened | Lead | Outcome (summary) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossfire Hurricane | 2016 | FBI | Investigation opened into Russian contacts; basis deemed sufficient by DOJ OIG |
| Special Counsel Mueller | 2017 | Robert Mueller | Found Russia sought to assist Trump; no criminal conspiracy charged against campaign |
| DOJ Inspector General review | 2019 | DOJ OIG | Found adequate basis to open probe but identified errors in FISA handling |
| Durham review | 2020s | Special Counsel John Durham | Criticized some FBI actions; few criminal charges resulted |
The table summarizes major official reviews that set the factual and legal context for the grand‑jury activity reported on Nov. 7, 2025. Each investigation had a distinct mandate: criminal inquiry, inspector general review of process, or ex post examination of investigative origins. Readers should note that outcomes differ by standard of proof and institutional remit.
Reactions & Quotes
Public reaction has been swift in political and media circles. Supporters of the former president used the report of subpoenas to argue that earlier probes were politically motivated; critics framed the subpoenas as part of a lawful review of what officials knew and did during a consequential intelligence period.
“I have said from the start the investigations were politically driven and damaging to our system.”
Former President Donald Trump (public statements)
That sentiment from Mr. Trump has frequently accompanied his calls for scrutiny of those who led and conducted post‑2016 probes. The new subpoenas are likely to be invoked by his supporters as evidence for those long‑standing claims.
“Some actions and public statements at the time were deeply alarming and warranted strong response.”
John Brennan (public comments)
Brennan has publicly criticized Mr. Trump in the past, and his remarks have amplified the political stakes. Legal and intelligence professionals caution that public rhetoric does not substitute for the evidentiary standards a grand jury must apply.
Unconfirmed
- Whether additional subpoenas beyond Brennan, Strzok and Page have been issued or will be issued has not been publicly confirmed as of this report.
- The precise documentary or testimonial subjects the grand jury is seeking—specific meetings, communications or analytic products—have not been disclosed.
- Any suggestion that subpoenas presage imminent criminal charges is speculative; grand‑jury subpoenas are investigative and do not necessarily indicate pending indictments.
Bottom Line
The Nov. 7, 2025 subpoenas to former CIA Director John Brennan and ex‑FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page mark a significant procedural step in a long‑running set of inquiries tied to the 2016 Russia matter. While the subpoenas focus renewed attention on contested intelligence assessments and investigative choices from 2016–2019, they do not on their own establish wrongdoing or an imminent criminal case.
Observers should watch for additional public filings, court challenges to any subpoenas, and official statements from the Justice Department for greater clarity. Given the political sensitivity and the number of prior reviews, any subsequent legal or public‑policy consequences are likely to unfold slowly and be litigated vigorously.
Sources
- CBS News (News report on Nov. 7, 2025)
- U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General (Official — inspector general reviews of FBI handling)
- U.S. Department of Justice — Special Counsel Robert Mueller report (Official report)
- Fox News Digital (Media outlet reported early on the subpoenas)