Joseph diGenova abruptly resigned from the Justice Department role he held overseeing the investigation into alleged conspiracies against President Trump, leaving a year-long probe with dozens of subpoenas but zero charges.
DiGenova, an 81-year-old former U.S. attorney and longtime Trump ally, tendered his resignation by letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche at 3 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, September 10, according to multiple reports. His wife and fellow attorney Victoria Toensing, who had joined the federal prosecution team in South Florida, was expected to leave the department the following day.
The departure followed months of mounting frustration from both DOJ leadership and the White House over the pace and management of the so-called "Grand Conspiracy" investigation, which is based out of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Fort Pierce, Florida. Sources familiar with the matter told Fox News that diGenova had lost the confidence of both institutions and had been effectively sidelined before his formal exit.
DiGenova confirmed the move but offered little explanation. He told CBS News: "It was an honor and a privilege to serve the president and the department." He declined to comment further on the circumstances.
DiGenova was tapped in April to take over the probe after career prosecutor Maria Medetis Long was removed from the case. He came in as Counselor to the Attorney General, a title that gave him direct access to Blanche and the White House. His appointment followed Long's departure, which AP News reported came after the career national security prosecutor expressed doubt about the legal viability of a potential criminal prosecution in the Brennan case.
The investigation had been active for roughly a year. Over that period, prosecutors issued dozens of subpoenas targeting high-ranking Obama-era officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Some individuals testified before a grand jury. Lawyers for additional witnesses were recently notified that their clients would receive grand jury subpoenas.
Yet in five months under diGenova's leadership, no charges materialized. The administration had also been pursuing a separate criminal investigation into whether Brennan lied to Congress about the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. That probe, too, produced no charges.
The absence of results became a sore point. Sources told the New York Post that diGenova had been accused of "slow-rolling" indictments and sharing "unrealistic expectations" with the president. Other sources described concerns about "rabbit holes" and a lack of focus.
DiGenova had previously told associates that indictments could have been brought within 30 days. That timeline came and went. The gap between his early confidence and the investigation's actual output appears to be a central factor in his falling out with DOJ and White House leadership.
On his way out, diGenova pushed back against the criticism. He told the Associated Press:
"There's plenty of evidence in all of these cases to prove the theories of prosecution. It just takes time to get there, and some people want to get there a little faster than others, and you can't do that."
He was more pointed in comments to the New York Post:
"If you want indictments where there's no evidence, you have an ethical problem."
The implication was clear. DiGenova framed his departure not as a failure of effort but as a refusal to bring charges that the evidence did not yet support. Whether that reflects prosecutorial integrity or an inability to build viable cases is the question his exit leaves unanswered.
Acting Attorney General Blanche, for his part, appeared to leave the door open. He told AP that diGenova "didn't have access to grand jury information" or witnesses in his public commentary, and said he expected any prosecutor to "follow the facts." That statement stopped well short of a vote of confidence, or a direct rebuke.
DiGenova's resignation was not the first sign of instability inside the investigation. Before he arrived, career prosecutor Maria Medetis Long had been removed from the case. Her departure, as AP reported, followed her own doubts about whether the Brennan case could sustain a criminal prosecution.
After diGenova took over, the Justice Department issued grand jury subpoenas over one weekend, then reversed course and withdrew them in favor of requests for voluntary interviews. The reason for that reversal was not immediately known. The pattern suggests an investigation that has lurched between aggressive postures and sudden retreats, with no consistent prosecutorial strategy holding for long.
Investigators also sought voluntary interviews with former FBI agents involved in the Mar-a-Lago investigation, according to CBS News. That effort added another thread to an already sprawling inquiry that was scrutinizing some of the most prominent names in Obama-era law enforcement and intelligence, including former FBI Director James Comey.
The broader reorganization of federal law enforcement under the current administration has produced a series of personnel shake-ups across agencies. DiGenova's exit fits that pattern, but it also stands apart, because it involved a hand-picked loyalist walking away from a probe the president publicly championed.
Just The News reported that diGenova's departure came during what had been the most active week of grand jury witness activity in the Fort Pierce investigation. The timing underscored the abruptness of the exit. DiGenova was not easing out after wrapping up a phase of the work. He left in the middle of it.
His formal title, Counselor to the Attorney General, had given him a position of unusual influence, with direct lines to both Blanche and the White House. The Washington Examiner noted that diGenova was hired on April 20 and characterized his departure as confirmation of the "abrupt nature" of the exit. He lasted fewer than five months.
DiGenova, who served as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia from 1983 to 1988 under President Reagan, had long been a fixture in conservative legal circles. He previously represented Trump's campaign and was a vocal critic of the Russia investigation and the officials who launched it. His appointment was seen as a signal that the administration wanted someone with both prosecutorial credentials and ideological alignment leading the probe.
That combination was not enough. The political pressures facing the administration heading into the midterm cycle likely raised the stakes for visible results, results that never arrived.
With diGenova gone and Toensing expected to follow him out the door, the future of the "Grand Conspiracy" investigation is uncertain. No successor has been named. No charges have been filed in either the broader conspiracy probe or the separate Brennan investigation. The dozens of subpoenas, the grand jury testimony, and the months of work have not yet produced a single indictment.
The departure also leaves open a basic question: Was the investigation a legitimate but slow-moving prosecutorial effort that needed more time, or was it a politically motivated project that could never deliver what its backers promised? DiGenova's parting comments suggest he believed the former. The White House's reported frustration suggests it was running out of patience with that answer.
The string of high-profile departures from Trump's orbit in recent months has become its own recurring storyline. DiGenova's exit may not be the most dramatic, but it may be among the most consequential, because the investigation he left behind was supposed to be the one that finally held the architects of the Russia probe accountable.
If the people who weaponized federal power against a presidential candidate are ever going to face legal consequences, someone will have to pick up where diGenova left off, and actually finish the job.